The Central London County Court’s decision in Langley v Qin (2024) represents a significant victory for families facing predatory marriages, as the court found that a 93-year-old man’s marriage to his 54-year-old carer and subsequent will were procured through undue influence.

This important case demonstrates how courts will scrutinise relationships where there are significant age gaps, financial dependency, and evidence of exploitation, particularly following the Court of Appeal’s stricter guidance on undue influence in Rea v Rea.

The Facts of Langley v Qin

The case involved Robert Harrington, a 93-year-old widower who married his 54-year-old carer, Ms Qin, in what his daughter Michelle Langley argued was a predatory marriage designed to secure his substantial estate.

Following the marriage, Mr Harrington made a new will that excluded his daughter entirely, leaving everything to his new wife. The case raised serious concerns about the exploitation of vulnerable elderly people by those in positions of trust and care.

Crucially, the evidence revealed over £230,000 in unexplained financial transfers to Ms Qin, as well as evidence that she had “shopped around” different solicitors to find one who would prepare the will, raising red flags about the legitimacy of the arrangement.

The Court’s Decision

The Central London County Court found in favour of Ms Langley, determining that both the marriage and the subsequent will were procured through undue influence. The court also found additional grounds for invalidating the will, including lack of testamentary capacity and want of knowledge and approval.

This represented a comprehensive victory for the daughter, with the court accepting that Mr Harrington had been systematically exploited by someone who was supposed to be caring for him.

Navigating Post-Rea v Rea Principles

The decision in Langley v Qin is particularly significant because it came after the Court of Appeal’s decision in Rea v Rea [2024] EWCA Civ 169, which substantially raised the threshold for proving undue influence. The Court of Appeal had emphasised that undue influence must be “more probable than any other hypothesis” and described it as “inherently improbable.”

However, Langley v Qin demonstrates that where there is sufficient evidence of actual coercion and exploitation, courts will still find undue influence, even under the stricter post-Rea standards.

Key Evidence in Undue Influence Cases

The success in Langley v Qin was built on several crucial pieces of evidence that distinguished it from the facts in Rea v Rea:

Unexplained Financial Transfers
The court was particularly concerned by over £230,000 in financial transfers to Ms Qin that could not be adequately explained or justified.

“Shopping Around” Solicitors
Evidence that Ms Qin had approached multiple solicitors to find one willing to prepare the will suggested a deliberate attempt to circumvent proper safeguards.

Relationship of Dependency
The carer-patient relationship created a natural imbalance of power and dependency that made Mr Harrington particularly vulnerable to influence.

Significant Age Difference
The 39-year age gap between the parties, combined with Mr Harrington’s advanced age and vulnerability, raised obvious concerns about the genuineness of the relationship.

Systematic Exclusion
The complete exclusion of Mr Harrington’s daughter from his estate, despite their previously close relationship, suggested external influence rather than the testator’s genuine wishes.

The Problem of Predatory Marriages

Langley v Qin highlights the growing problem of predatory marriages, where vulnerable elderly people are targeted by those seeking to inherit their wealth. Common warning signs include:

• Significant age differences between the parties
• Previous relationships between carer and patient
• Rapid progression from care relationship to marriage
• Isolation of the vulnerable person from family
• Sudden changes to wills following marriage
• Unexplained financial transfers
• Evidence of “forum shopping” for compliant professionals

Legal Protections for Vulnerable Adults

The case demonstrates several important legal protections that can help vulnerable adults:

Undue Influence Doctrine
Despite the higher threshold set in Rea v Rea, the doctrine of undue influence remains a vital protection against exploitation.

Testamentary Capacity Requirements
The requirement that testators understand the nature and effect of their wills provides additional protection.

Knowledge and Approval
Courts will scrutinise whether testators truly understood and approved the contents of their wills.

Professional Duties
Solicitors and other professionals have duties to ensure their clients are not being exploited or coerced.

Practical Implications for Families

Langley v Qin provides important guidance for families concerned about potential exploitation:

Early Intervention
Families should not hesitate to seek legal advice if they suspect a vulnerable relative is being exploited.

Document Everything
Keeping records of changes in behaviour, financial transactions, and relationship dynamics can be crucial evidence.

Professional Support
Involving appropriate professionals such as social workers, doctors, or solicitors can help protect vulnerable adults.

Court Protection
In extreme cases, applications to the Court of Protection may be necessary to safeguard vulnerable adults.

Implications for Legal Practitioners

The case also provides important guidance for legal practitioners:

Enhanced Due Diligence
Solicitors should be particularly cautious when approached to prepare wills in circumstances involving:

• Significant age differences between spouses
• Recent marriages involving vulnerable adults
• Complete exclusion of family members
• Carer-patient relationships

Independent Legal Advice
Ensuring that vulnerable clients receive truly independent advice, away from potentially influential partners or carers.

Proper Documentation
Careful documentation of the client’s understanding, family relationships, and the reasons for their testamentary decisions.

When to Seek Legal Advice

Families should consider seeking legal advice if they observe:

• A vulnerable relative entering into a relationship with someone significantly younger
• Rapid progression from professional care to personal relationship
• Isolation of the vulnerable person from family and friends
• Unexplained financial transactions or transfers
• Sudden changes to wills or other important documents
• Evidence of pressure or coercion
• The vulnerable person showing signs of confusion or fear

The Broader Context

Langley v Qin is part of a broader pattern of cases involving the exploitation of vulnerable elderly people. The decision demonstrates that despite the stricter requirements established in Rea v Rea, courts remain willing to intervene where there is clear evidence of systematic exploitation and abuse.

The case also highlights the importance of safeguarding vulnerable adults and the role that legal professionals, healthcare providers, and family members can play in protecting those at risk.

Conclusion

Langley v Qin represents an important victory against predatory marriage and the exploitation of vulnerable elderly people. The case demonstrates that where there is sufficient evidence of systematic abuse and coercion, courts will intervene to protect victims and ensure that their genuine wishes are respected.

For families facing similar situations, the case provides hope that legal remedies are available, while also highlighting the importance of early intervention and proper legal support.

The decision serves as a warning to those who would exploit vulnerable adults that the courts remain vigilant and will take action to prevent such abuse when proper evidence is presented.

If you are concerned about a vulnerable relative who may be subject to undue influence or exploitation, our specialist contentious probate team can provide expert guidance and support. We understand the sensitivity of these situations and offer free initial consultations to assess your circumstances. Call us on 0161 515 7329 or visit https://www.fiftysixlaw.co.uk/contact/ to leave your details and arrange a consultation.