A charity shop volunteer disinherited by his mother after she became convinced he tried to murder his brother has won a court battle for a share of her £600,000 estate.

Richard Dalton, 68, a retired electrician, had been due to split the inheritance from his mother, Peggy Dalton, with his brother Robert and one of his nephews.

But Peggy dramatically changed her will shortly before her death in 2021, to leave almost all the money to Robert, 67, and his wife Carly, explaining she suspected Richard of stealing £100,000 from her and attempted to kill his brother.

The frail 93-year-old came to this conclusion months after Robert and Carly had moved in to live with her full-time.

Richard sued the couple, claiming they had 'coerced' Peggy into changing her will by concocting the story about the murder attempt and 'isolating' her from the rest of the family.

Last week, the battle played out in the High Court, where a judge ruled in Richard's favour and reinstated a previous will from 2018 under which he gets a one-third share, worth about £200,000.

Giving judgment, Master Katherine McQuail found that Peggy's dementia made her incapable of writing a valid will, and that the revised document was written under 'undue influence' from Robert and Carly, representing the 'product of their wishes, not hers.'

Her misconception that Richard tried to kill Robert was either a delusion as a result of her dementia, or of 'false beliefs' planted in her head by her 'black sheep' son and his wife, she added.

She went on to slap the Surrey couple, who did not turn up for the trial, with a £190,000 bill for Richard's lawyers' costs, almost completely wiping out Robert's share of the inheritance under the valid 2018 will.

The court heard Peggy Dalton married her late husband, William, when she was 30, and raised four children while working as a cleaner: brothers Richard, Robert and David, and their sister, Christine.

William suffered brain damage after a devastating road accident, and Peggy nursed him for years until his death in 2008.

After two of the children died, Christine in 2015 and David in 2018, Peggy's £600,000 estate, largely made up of her home in South Godstone, Surrey, was due to be split between surviving sons Richard and Robert, and her grandson Vincent.

However, the November 2020 will, made only four months before her death at 94, in March 2021, was a 'radical departure' from the previous version.

It entirely cut out Richard, of Reigate, Surrey, and left £10,000 to each of six grandchildren, and split the rest between Robert and Carly.

Records of a conversation with will writers revealed her belief that Richard had stolen from her, and had been charged with attempted murder for attacking his brother when challenged. 

The case reached court after Richard, who is now retired and volunteers in a children's charity shop, accused his brother and sister-in-law of planting false beliefs in his mother's mind in order to 'coerce' her into making a new will.

His barrister, Julian Reed, told the court that Robert and Carly had not had any relationship with Peggy for some time before they moved into her home in early 2020.  

Robert had even referred to himself as 'the black sheep of the family'.

Almost immediately after they moved in, Robert was granted power of attorney, putting Robert in control of her property affairs, with the ailing pensioner increasingly isolated from family and medical professionals.

'That move - from nine to 11 months before the 2020 will was executed - afforded Robert and Carly time to coerce the deceased to make a will favourable to them,' the barrister said.

He added: 'Once they were in the deceased's property, she was isolated from both family members and health professionals. 

'Family members could no longer attend to administer the deceased's medication, social workers were denied access to the deceased.'

Challenging the new will, Mr Reed said it had been made at a time when Peggy was dependent on her son and daughter-in-law and stricken with dementia.

He told the judge of the will writers' note, which recounted Peggy saying that Richard had stolen £100,000 from her and been charged with attempted murder after attacking Robert.

The barrister said: 'That passage raises serious concerns, because the various concerns held by social services suggest it was Robert who was taking monies from the deceased and he had a drug habit.

'That suggests either confusion on the part of the deceased or undue influence upon her from either of the defendants, Robert and Carly. Richard did not steal £100,000 from the deceased.'

He told the judge there had been an incident when, after Robert challenged Richard about driving their mum's car, Richard had become angry and driven the car in his brother's direction, leading to a dangerous driving conviction.

'The deceased was not present for the incident between Richard and Robert,' Mr Reed noted.

'Thus the deceased, given she had been isolated, would only have learned of the incident from Robert or possibly Carly.

'Richard has never been charged with attempted murder. The fact that the deceased believed that he had been charged reveals a false account of events from Robert or lack of capacity to understand and retain information.

'The only logical reason for Robert providing a false account to the deceased would have been to unduly influence her against Richard for the benefit of himself.'

He said that all the evidence points to there having been 'coercion' by Robert and Carly in order to get her to make a will 'for their benefit'.

'It would have been very easy for them to coerce her,' he said.

'She had been separated from family, separated from social services, separated from medical professionals - and was dependent on Robert and Carly.

'They, at that point, had control of her credit cards and were spreading false information about Richard attempting to murder Robert.

'All of those factors establish that there has been undue influence in relation to this will.'

He said there was evidence that Peggy was already suffering from dementia before Robert and Carly moved into her home around the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.

She was hospitalised less than a month after the will was executed and, when discharged to a care home shortly afterwards, was said to have 'quite advanced' dementia.

It was unlikely that, if she was so badly stricken by the time she entered the care home in February 2021, that she would have been fit enough to make a new will three months earlier.

The barrister said Robert and Carly had instructed solicitors when Richard's case was first lodged at court, but had since failed to engage with the proceedings and did not turn up for the trial.

Giving judgment at the end of a one-day trial, Master McQuail said Peggy's apparent belief that Richard had tried to kill Robert had 'no basis in reality'.

'Either Peggy came to believe that because she was told it by Robert or Carly, or she independently erroneously reached an erroneous belief to that effect,' she said.

'In any event, this calls into question her state of mind and her understanding of the circumstances of making the will - and therefore her understanding of the will making process.'

By November 2020 - when the will was drawn up - Peggy was in a state of mental decline due to dementia and unable to properly understand, she continued.

'In my judgment, by late 2020, the deceased was unable to comprehend or appreciate the documents to which she should give effect due to her misunderstanding of the issues or due to falsely planted information about what had passed between Richard and Robert, and the apparent attempt by Richard to murder his brother,' she said.

She declared the will invalid due to lack of proper execution, lack of testamentary capacity and want of knowledge and approval - also finding 'undue influence' on the part of Robert and Carly.

'They moved in with the deceased in early 2020 and kept her socially isolated from family members and medical professionals,' she noted.

Both Robert and Carly were there when the instructions were given for the will and, although the writer said Peggy was 'not under duress,' the judge said this held no weight.

'I take no comfort from his note saying that Peggy was not under duress,' she said, noting there was no sign that he discussed this issue with Peggy on her own.

Nor had he looked into whether detailed medical evidence should be gathered to assess whether Peggy was mentally fit to make a will, said the judge.

'I cannot give any credibility to his ability to assess whether there was any duress or influence of an improper sort,' she continued.

'There is a thread of anxiety throughout the court papers expressed by social care professionals and Peggy's family members about Robert and Carly's involvement in her financial affairs.

'Her health and medical capacity had deteriorated and declined by the end of 2020, and I infer that, to the extent she had capacity to make any will, her volition was subsumed by Robert and Carly and the will was the product of their wishes, not hers.'

She added: 'If the will was executed properly and the deceased had capacity at that time, the will would nonetheless be void for reasons of undue influence.'

The judge went on to confirm the validity of the previous 2018 will and to order that Robert and Carly - who are still living in Peggy's house - must foot Richard's legal bill, estimated at around £190,000.

That cash will come out of Robert's slice of the estate if they cannot cover the costs' bill from their current finances.

Speaking afterwards, Richard said his mum had been a 'very special individual,' who, despite losing her husband and two children, 'always found a reason to smile'.

'She never judged anyone and always did the right thing,' he said. 'We hope she would be proud of us for sticking with this until the end.'