Led but not driven: keeping doctrines distinct in Re MacDougall

Luke Harris

The recent decision in MacDougall v Thomas and Others (Re MacDougall) [2026] EWHC 1142 (Ch) will not be read quickly. Nicola Rushton KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, took 143 pages and over 500 paragraphs to dispose of nine transactions or groups of transactions [16] across some 15 years, traversing testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval, testamentary and lifetime undue influence, proprietary estoppel, the duties of attorneys and ademption. Yet a dominant theme emerges: where the law of wills and general equity principles governing lifetime gifts collide, the two bodies of law must be kept distinct, so that a relationship raising presumed undue influence for a lifetime gift may fall short of the coercion required to invalidate a will. More specifically, the case raised two questions of particular doctrinal interest - whether a will may be rescinded for mistake, and how ademption operates where specifically devised property has been disposed of in transactions tainted by incapacity, undue influence or an attorney's want of authority.