U.K. Case of Predatory Marriage: Will Set Aside but Predator Spouse Still Receives Inheritance
The case of Langley v. Qin,[1] is yet another decision which highlights the scourge of predatory marriages and the difficulties they pose. In this case, 94-year-old Robert Harrington married his 54-year-old former caregiver, Guixiang Qin.
Upon marriage, Mr. Harrington made a new will in Ms. Qin’s favour, effectively disinheriting his daughter Jill. Mr. Harrington’s daughter was successful in setting aside the will for want of testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and approval and undue influence. Where it concerned testamentary capacity, the court followed the decision in Clitheroe v. Bond,[2] and accepted medical evidence that Mr. Harrington suffered from a paranoid delusional disorder.[3] Despite the Court’s ability to overturn the will, because a court cannot set aside a predatory marriage after death,[4] the marriage endured in the face of findings of Mr. Harrington’s cognitive health and Ms. Qin’s reprehensible conduct. Ms. Qin, therefore, stood to inherit under the law of intestacy (which in the UK means she received a fixed net sum of £270,000 and half of the remainder of Mr. Harrington’s estate).
The court concluded that Mr. Harrington had not read the draft Will given to him. Further, the court could not rely on attendance notes in the absence of oral evidence from the drafting solicitors. As a result, the court found a ‘significant element of impropriety’ where it concerned Ms. Qin’s access to Mr. Harrington’s bank accounts,[5] including her attempts to hide transfers from tax authorities. The case was notable as one of the first undue influence cases to follow the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Rea v. Rea,[6] finding that Ms. Qin came to control Mr. Harrington’s finances and exercised control in selecting solicitors and will drafters.
—
[1]: See decision here: https://newsquarechambers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/K10CL238-Judgment-handing-down-12-April-2024.pdf
[2] [2021] EWHC 1102 (Ch).
[3] The court found that Mr. Harrington held a number of fixed, false beliefs, including that he had been estranged from his daughter for many years, that she stole his horse, and that he had been a senior officer in the army.
[4] See Re Roberts [1978] 1 WLR 653.
[5] The court accepted evidence that Ms. Qin obtained over £230,000 from Mr. Harrington’s bank accounts before and after death – amounts she failed to declare to HRMC as lifetime transfers when she applied for probate.
[6] [2024] EWCA Civ 169.
Menu
Written by: Kimberly A. Whaley
Posted on: May 12, 2025
Categories: Commentary, Elder Abuse
The case of Langley v. Qin,[1] is yet another decision which highlights the scourge of predatory marriages and the difficulties they pose. In this case, 94-year-old Robert Harrington married his 54-year-old former caregiver, Guixiang Qin.
Upon marriage, Mr. Harrington made a new will in Ms. Qin’s favour, effectively disinheriting his daughter Jill. Mr. Harrington’s daughter was successful in setting aside the will for want of testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and approval and undue influence. Where it concerned testamentary capacity, the court followed the decision in Clitheroe v. Bond,[2] and accepted medical evidence that Mr. Harrington suffered from a paranoid delusional disorder.[3] Despite the Court’s ability to overturn the will, because a court cannot set aside a predatory marriage after death,[4] the marriage endured in the face of findings of Mr. Harrington’s cognitive health and Ms. Qin’s reprehensible conduct. Ms. Qin, therefore, stood to inherit under the law of intestacy (which in the UK means she received a fixed net sum of £270,000 and half of the remainder of Mr. Harrington’s estate).
The court concluded that Mr. Harrington had not read the draft Will given to him. Further, the court could not rely on attendance notes in the absence of oral evidence from the drafting solicitors. As a result, the court found a ‘significant element of impropriety’ where it concerned Ms. Qin’s access to Mr. Harrington’s bank accounts,[5] including her attempts to hide transfers from tax authorities. The case was notable as one of the first undue influence cases to follow the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Rea v. Rea,[6] finding that Ms. Qin came to control Mr. Harrington’s finances and exercised control in selecting solicitors and will drafters.
—
[1]: See decision here: https://newsquarechambers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/K10CL238-Judgment-handing-down-12-April-2024.pdf
[2] [2021] EWHC 1102 (Ch).
[3] The court found that Mr. Harrington held a number of fixed, false beliefs, including that he had been estranged from his daughter for many years, that she stole his horse, and that he had been a senior officer in the army.
[4] See Re Roberts [1978] 1 WLR 653.
[5] The court accepted evidence that Ms. Qin obtained over £230,000 from Mr. Harrington’s bank accounts before and after death – amounts she failed to declare to HRMC as lifetime transfers when she applied for probate.
[6] [2024] EWCA Civ 169.
Author
View all posts