Successful will validity challenge exemplifies risks of predatory marriages for elderly testators: Langley v Qin case

read time: 7 mins
22.10.24

There are several ways in which the validity of a will can be challenged by law. In the recent case of Langley v Qin, concerning the estate of Robert Harrington, Robert’s daughter brought a challenge on the grounds of:

  • Lack of testamentary capacity
  • Lack of knowledge and approval
  • Undue influence

This article looks into this case in detail and reveals the court's findings.

Background of the case

The claimant in this case, Jill Langley, was the only child of Robert Harrington and his first wife Eileen Harrington, to whom he was married for 66 years before her death in January 2018. 

Robert had been described in the witness evidence as a difficult character who had a tendency to become fixated on certain issues. One example given was Jill’s marriage in 1987 to her husband Mitchell Langley. Robert strongly disliked Mr Langley and claimed he had broken up their family. This was the start of a strained relationship between Robert and Jill which waxed and waned over the following three decades. 

Soon after the death of Eileen in January 2018, Robert married Guixiang Qin on 25 June 2019 when he was 93 and she was 54. Jill claims that this was a predatory marriage and that prior to the marriage, Ms Qin was Robert’s paid carer. 

During the marriage, on 24 March 2020, Robert made a will. The will was professionally drafted by law firm Fraser Dawbarns, and named Ms Qin, or in her place her adult son from a previous relationship, as the sole beneficiary and executrix. Robert told the will drafter that he was estranged from Jill, which is why she had been excluded from the will. Robert died two months later on 26 May 2020.

If the will executed on 24 March 2020 was invalid then Robert would have died intestate as his earlier wills made in 1997 and 2012 were revoked by his marriage to Ms Qin. However Robert’s capacity to marry - the threshold for which is much lower than that required to execute a will - was not formally challenged. 

The claim

Jill asked the court to pronounce against the will on the grounds of: a lack of testamentary capacity on Robert’s part to make a will, the will having been made without Robert’s knowledge and approval, and the undue influence exerted on Robert by Ms Qin which led to the will being made. Jill also raised questions as to the whereabouts of in excess of £200,000, which had been withdrawn from Robert’s bank account since 2018. 

Ms Qin denied the claim. She said that it was Robert’s own decision to make a will and that other than driving Robert to the offices of Fraser Dawbarns she had no part in the will making process. Ms Qin also denied being paid to provide care to Robert. Ms Qin claimed that a few months after she moved in with Robert in February 2019, he started giving her money as he did not want her to work, eventually giving her thousands of pounds monthly.  

The evidence

The court considered the attendance notes of the will drafter at the time of executing the will, which contained inconsistent statements from Robert as to his last contact with Jill: on one occasion he said the last contact was 18 months ago and on another, 30 years ago. Robert also misstated his career and where he had previously lived to the will drafter. The court noted that the will drafter had made no attempts to verify any of the information provided by Robert.

The court also considered the evidence of Dr Hugh Series, a consultant old age psychiatrist, who concluded that on balance Robert lacked testamentary capacity due to a paranoid delusional disorder which had poisoned his mind against his daughter. This may have rendered Robert unable to recall the true history of Jill’s relationship with him and Eileen, which ultimately led him to exclude Jill from his will. Dr Series also gave his opinion that Robert was, as a result of the paranoid delusions and some impairment of memory, vulnerable to influence. 

An entry in Robert’s medical records from September 2017 noted concerns of the East of England Ambulance service that Robert was being financially or materially abused by an ‘unnamed carer’. The court also noted on Robert’s medical records an entry from September 2018 which stated that Robert had asked for a capacity assessment. Ms Qin denied knowing Robert at that time, and claimed to have met Robert in January 2019.  

Whilst the court could not conclude whether Ms Qin was the unnamed carer cited in the September 2017 entry on Robert’s medical records, from November 2018 onwards Robert’s bank statements showed large cash withdrawals being made regularly. From March 2019 onwards, Robert was making direct transfers to Ms Qin, some with the reference ‘care’. Ms Qin claimed that these payments were wedding related, following Robert’s proposal to her in March 2019 (although Ms Qin gave various dates for when she and Robert got engaged throughout the trial). The court noted that these payments continued long after the wedding in June 2019, and by December 2019 Robert was making significant monthly transfers to Ms Qin (of up to £42,000).

Also noted on Robert’s bank statements were payments to will writing firms in November 2018, March 2019 and May 2019. The value of these payments suggested that these firms had conducted initial meetings but had either not been instructed or had declined to act, which the court considered could have been because of concerns about capacity on behalf of the solicitors. Ms Qin initially denied any knowledge of Robert making enquiries to make a will, however she did eventually admit to having knowledge of this by March 2019, although she maintained that she did not assist in any way. 

When confronted with the attendance notes of Fraser Dawbarns, which record that Ms Qin was not only present at the time that Robert gave instructions for the preparation of his last will but also that she helped the will writer to understand Robert’s instructions, Ms Qin conceded that they were there together, and that it was “a conversation”. 

Ms Qin’s testimony throughout the trial was inconsistent and she offered little or no explanation to the court on many lines of questioning such as why - if she was not a paid carer as she claimed - Robert was making bank transfers to her with the reference ‘care’; the date on which she and Robert had become engaged; the state of Robert’s health by the time his last will was executed; and the extent of her involvement in the preparation of that will. 

The court’s findings

In the judgment handed down on 12 April 2024, the court found that Robert did not sufficiently know or approve of the content of the will and in any event, he lacked the testamentary capacity to make a valid will. The court also found that that Ms Qin had controlled Robert’s finances, and had been ultimately responsible for the preparation of the will by shopping around local firms until she found one that would make the will in terms that benefitted her. 

As a result, Robert’s last will was set aside with his estate distributed in accordance with the rules of intestacy. 

Whilst this was a success for Jill, who will now inherit a sum in the region of £200,000, the remainder of Robert’s approx. £680,000 estate will still be inherited by Ms Qin. This would be the case even if a successful challenge to the marriage were to be brought by Jill. Under Section 16 of the Matrimonial Clauses Act 1973, an order for the nullity of marriage only has the effect of annulling the marriage from the time the order is made. Therefore, even if an annulment were to be granted, at the time of Robert’s death Ms Qin and Robert would still have been lawfully married, entitling Ms Qin to her share of his estate under the intestacy rules.

This case is an unfortunate reminder of how elderly testators can be at serious risk of undue influence, or coercive control, as a result of predatory marriages. If you have concerns or queries regarding any of the topics covered in this article, contact our disputed wills and trusts team

Sign up for legal insights

We produce a range of insights and publications to help keep our clients up-to-date with legal and sector developments.  

Sign up