A High Court case found that a renowned harpist from Reading knew exactly what he was doing when he signed his will and did not have his mind poisoned by his daughter.
The deceased left most of his £1M plus inheritance to his daughter.
The son challenged his late father’s will, accusing his sister of poisoning their father’s mind against him, in a rarely used area of law known as ‘fraudulent calumny’.
The son had accused his sister of filling their father’s ears with untrue claims that he was wasteful with money, but the judge rejected claims that the daughter had painted her brother to their father as a dishonest man who could not be trusted.
The brother claimed that his sister had told her father that her brother had behaved dishonestly with his late wife’s estate. The judge dismissed the allegation and also found that what was said about the brother was not a factor in the decision to make the will.
In order to succeed in a claim for ‘fraudulent calumny’ it is necessary to show that untrue statements have been made about a person’s character or morals which were designed to alter the will, and that they were the cause of the change.