A recent decision by Glasgow Sheriff Court is a stark reminder of what can go wrong when a vulnerable person’s Will is drawn up without independent legal advice. 

In Scott v Reeves and Others [2026] SC GLA 57, the Sheriff reduced, or set aside, a homemade Will that had been used to disinherit two of the deceased’s three children. The court found both that it had been obtained by facility and circumvention and that it was the product of undue influence on the part of the daughter who benefited.

The case is worth looking at closely. It illustrates how the Scottish Courts approach challenges to a Will, and why instructing a solicitor is so much more than a formality.

What Happened

The deceased was diagnosed with vascular dementia in September 2018. The following year, she signed a Power of Attorney in favour of one of her daughters, who became her principal carer and managed her finances. At that point, the deceased already had a Will dating from 2011, prepared by solicitors, which divided her family home equally between her three children.

After her death, a second Will surfaced. It was a two-page do-it-yourself pro forma document, handwritten in by the daughter who held the Power of Attorney - and it left the home solely to her. The other two children were effectively disinherited.

There was an obvious problem. Although the Will was dated 25 April 2019, the printed pro forma had not been published until November of that year. The Will could not have been signed before the form existed.

When pressed in Court, the daughter offered competing explanations: first that she had been confused about dates because of Covid-19, and then that she was simply hopeless at writing dates. The Sheriff did not accept either explanation. He concluded that the misdating had been deliberate, and that it had been intended to make the Will appear contemporaneous with a capacity certificate from the deceased’s consultant psychiatrist.

Facility and Circumvention Explained

Facility and circumvention is a long-standing doctrine of Scots Law. It allows a Court to reduce, that is to set aside, a deed where three things are in effect:

1. Facility - the granter, the person executing the deed, was in a state of weakened mental or physical condition that made them more susceptible to influence;
2. Circumvention - there was some form of imposition, deception or improper pressure brought to bear on the granter; and
3. Lesion - the granter suffered real disadvantage as a result.

Importantly, the granter does not have to lack legal capacity for the doctrine to apply. It is designed to catch cases where the granter is technically capable but has been worn down, manipulated or deceived by someone in a position of influence over them. The threshold of facility is lower than the test for incapacity, and the level of circumvention required tends to be assessed in proportion to the degree of facility shown.

In this case, the Sheriff accepted evidence that the daughter had threatened to stop caring for her mother and had told her that her siblings would, if given the chance, have her placed in hospital. There was also evidence that, after a redecoration of the family home, photographs of the other siblings had been removed, that family celebration cards were no longer sent, and that the other children were excluded from their mother’s 75th birthday party. Set against the deceased’s diagnosis of vascular dementia and her established physical frailty, the Sheriff was satisfied that all three elements of facility and circumvention were made out.

Undue Influence

The Sheriff also went on to find that the Will had been procured by undue influence, which is a related but distinct doctrine. It applies where a relationship of trust and confidence has been abused by the dominant party to that relationship for their own benefit.

Three features of the case were enough to compel that further finding: 

✔ that the daughter was in a position of dominance over the deceased; 

✔ that she stood to benefit substantially under the new Will as the principal beneficiary; and 

✔ that the deceased had not been given the benefit of independent legal advice when the Will was prepared. 

Taken together, those features raised what the Sheriff described as the inescapable inference that undue influence had been exerted.

It is worth highlighting that, where independent legal advice has not been made available to a vulnerable granter, undue influence may be inferred unless the party benefiting can show that the granter was in as good a position as if independent advice had been received. That is a significant evidential burden, and in the absence of contemporaneous solicitor file notes it can be very difficult to discharge.

The second Will was therefore reduced on both grounds.

Capacity Is Not the End of the Inquiry

It is useful to remember that capacity and facility are different concepts. 

The medical evidence in this case, which the Sheriff accepted, was that there was no proper basis for saying the deceased had lacked testamentary capacity when the second Will was signed. The case therefore did not turn on incapacity. It turned on the fact that, although capable in law, the deceased was mentally and physically weakened to a point where she was susceptible to pressure, and that pressure was applied by someone in a position of dominance over her.

This is an important corrective to a common assumption in disputed estates: that capacity is the only question that matters. It is not. A Will may still be the product of facility and circumvention, of undue influence, or of both, even where capacity itself is not in doubt.

Why Independent Legal Advice Matters

A striking characteristic of this case is not the family dynamics, which are sadly common in contested estates, but the complete absence of any independent professional involvement in preparing the second Will. 

The granter was elderly, had a diagnosis of dementia and was entirely dependent on one of her children. The Will was handwritten by that same child on a stationery shop form, with no solicitor present to take instructions privately, to consider whether a contemporaneous capacity assessment was appropriate, or to satisfy themselves that the granter was acting freely and understood what she was doing.

A solicitor preparing a Will for a client in those circumstances would routinely take instructions in the absence of any beneficiary, would consider an independent capacity assessment where appropriate, and would keep careful file notes that could, if necessary, later be produced as evidence. None of that was done here, and the consequence was a contested Sheriff Court action.

DIY Will kits are often marketed on the basis that they save money. This case is a useful reminder that any saving is frequently illusory. The cost of the litigation, the legal fees on both sides, the delay in winding up the estate and the lasting damage to family relationships will, taken together, far exceed the cost of having a properly prepared Will.

Challenging or Defending a Will - Paris Steele Can Help

If you have concerns that a relative’s Will may have been procured by improper means, or if you have been named as executor in a Will that you fear is open to challenge, the position needs careful legal attention from the outset. 

Actions of reduction should be raised promptly and supported by reliable evidence, including, where possible, medical records and statements from those who knew the deceased. Equally, an executor who proceeds to distribute an estate while the validity of the Will is in doubt may expose themselves to personal liability.

Paris Steele prepares Wills for clients across East Lothian and beyond, with particular care taken where capacity may be a future issue. We can also advise on Powers of Attorney, Inheritance Tax planning and, where matters have already gone wrong, on contested estates and actions of reduction.

Contact us online, or call 01620 892138 to find out how we can help you.