Ross v Gosselin’s Executor’s, 1926 SC 325
Citation: Ross v Gosselin’s Executor’s, 1926 SC 325
Rule of thumb: If Person A advising an elderly Person B on a will results in Person A receiving an abnormally large share of it, is this legal? There could be a presumption of facility & circumvention in these circumstances.
Judgment:
This case affirmed the ‘presumption of undue and facility and circumvention in self-interested will making’ – when one person who is closely connected with the testator convinces the testator to do something in their will that is in this person’s particular financial favour then this raises a presumption of undue influence, with facility and circumvention being when a person does this to a testator who is in a more vulnerable position than normal, ‘The essence of undue influence is that a person, who has assumed or undertaken a position of quasi fiduciary responsibility in relation to the affairs of another, allows his own self-interest to deflect the advice or guidance he gives, in his own favour. On the other hand, the essence of circumvention and facility is that a person practices on the debility of another whose individuality is impaired by infirmity or age, and moulds the inclination of the latter to his own profit... recognise the distinction between these 2’, Lord President Clyde at 324
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.