Judge found Mark Briant had not properly understood the effect of a life-interest trust.
Will knowledge approval was at the centre of a High Court dispute over Mark Briant’s 2022 Will, with the court finding that he did not know and approve the effect of a life-interest trust created for his wife.
The judgment confirms that the court found Mark did not know and approve the effect of the life-interest trust, while the separate undue-influence claim failed.
The judgment, handed down by HHJ Michael Berkley in the Business and Property Courts in Bristol on 23 September 2026, concerned two claims brought by Rosemary Elliott against Vanessa and Ian Bateson. One challenged the validity of the 2022 Will, while the other sought financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
Mark and Rosemary had previously made intended mirror wills. In 2022, however, Mark made a new will after moving to live with Vanessa and Ian. The new will provided Rosemary with a life interest in 50% of his estate, with the remainder ultimately passing to Vanessa, while the other 50% was divided between Vanessa and her children and grandchildren.
The court was not asked to decide whether Mark had testamentary capacity. Instead, the key issue was whether he knew and approved the contents of the 2022 Will.
The judge found that Mark had initially instructed that Rosemary should receive 50% of his estate outright. During a meeting with solicitor Matthew Knight, the idea of putting Rosemary’s share into a life-interest trust was introduced. The trust was intended to provide her with income while preventing the capital from being used for care-home fees.
However, the judgment found that the implications of the arrangement had not been adequately explained. The trust contained no express power allowing Rosemary to access the capital, and any access depended effectively on Vanessa giving up part of her own prospective inheritance. The judge concluded that Mark had been given the impression that Rosemary would have access to the funds when that was not what the trust actually provided.
The court also found that Mark probably did not read the final will, or only inspected it briefly. Even if he had read it, the judge considered that nothing in the wording would necessarily have alerted a non-lawyer to the difference between what had been discussed and the legal effect of the trust.
As a result, the court held that Mark did not know and approve of the relevant part of the 2022 Will. The judge stated that the defendants had failed to satisfy the court that the will reflected Mark’s testamentary intentions.
The court then considered the appropriate remedy. Relying on the principles concerning cases where only part of a will has not been known and approved, the judge ordered that the wording creating the life-interest arrangement should be struck out, rather than reconstructing the will by selectively deleting provisions.
The separate allegation of undue influence was rejected. The judge acknowledged that there was circumstantial evidence that could support the claim, including changes in Mark’s circumstances and his relationship with family members. However, the court found other reasonable explanations for his actions and considered the evidence insufficient to establish the high threshold required for testamentary undue influence.
The judge also concluded that, because of the finding concerning knowledge and approval, Rosemary had achieved all she could have achieved through her claim under the 1975 Act. No additional award was therefore made under that legislation.