Category:Testamentary capacity cases
Other related cases can be found within the Category:Capacity and DOL (eventually they will be re-categorised).
The old category structure used on this page is comprehensive as it contains every relevant case. The new database structure was introduced in 2019. It is more potentially useful than the old categorisation system: it includes all cases since January 2017, but only a minority of older cases: see Special:Drilldown/Cases. The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.
| Case and summary | Date added | Categories |
|---|---|---|
| * Testamentary capacity Leonard Leonard [2024] EWHC 321 (Ch) — Detailed discussion of the test for testamentary capacity in Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549. | 2024‑10‑19 21:52:01 | Judgment available on Bailii
|
| * Testamentary capacity test Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 — Common law testamentary capacity test. | 2023‑06‑22 14:00:53 | Judgment available online
|
| * Testamentary capacity test Baker v Hewston [2023] EWHC 1145 (Ch) — This case is about the relationship between the common law test of testamentary capacity in Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. | 2023‑06‑22 13:53:06 | 2023 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Testamentary capacity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2023 cases
|
| * Testamentary capacity Hughes v Pritchard [2021] EWHC 1580 (Ch) — "Gwen Hughes, the second defendant, and her son Stephen Hughes, the third defendant, contend that the 2016 will is invalid on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and approval and/or undue influence exerted by Gareth Hughes upon his father; or alternatively that Yr Efail is subject to a proprietary estoppel claim by Elfed’ Hughes’ estate whereby Yr Efail belongs in equity to that estate." | 2022‑07‑16 10:24:22 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Testamentary capacity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Testamentary capacity and solicitor's role Hughes v Pritchard [2022] EWCA Civ 386 — "This appeal raises some important issues about the proper weight to be given to the drafting solicitor's evidence and a medical practitioner's assessment of a testator's testamentary capacity and the tasks which they need to undertake." | 2022‑07‑16 10:17:26 | 2022 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Testamentary capacity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Testamentary capacity Skillett v Skillett [2022] EWHC 233 (Ch) — "The Claimant brings these proceedings to ask the court to propound in solemn form the will executed by his late father, Charles Skillett ('the Testator'), on 19 May 2011. The Defendant, his brother, objects on the grounds that their father lacked testamentary capacity and/or did not know and approve the contents of his will at the time of execution." | 2022‑02‑09 22:37:13 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Testamentary capacity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Testamentary capacity and delusions Clitheroe v Bond [2021] EWHC 1102 (Ch) — (1) It was not in the interests of justice to allow the question whether testamentary capacity should be determined using the MCA test rather than the Banks v Goodfellow test to be raised on appeal (though the judge would have concluded that the Banks test continues to apply). (2) In relation to delusions (part of the Banks test): "In order to establish whether a delusion exists, the relevant false belief must be irrational and fixed in nature. It not an essential part of the test that it is demonstrated that it would have been impossible to reason the relevant individual out of the belief if the requisite fixed nature can be demonstrated in another way, for example by showing that the belief was formed and maintained in the face of clear evidence to the contrary of which the individual was aware and would not have forgotten." | 2021‑05‑06 21:14:51 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Testamentary capacity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Norwegian probate case Rokkan v Rokkan [2021] EWHC 481 (Ch) — This Chancery case discussed MCA 2005 sch 2 para 8. The preliminary issues decided were: (1) Whether the Defendants are subject to any obligation, enforceable in England and Wales, to distribute the estate of the Deceased pursuant to the principles of the Norwegian law of deferred probate; (2) Whether, on the assumption that the Deceased lacked capacity to manage her property and affairs at the relevant time, the transfers from the Den Norske Bank in Bergen to the Lloyds Bank in England caused the specific legacy at clause 5 of the Deceased's will, executed on 11 September 2012, to fail. | 2021‑04‑14 20:28:39 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Testamentary capacity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Testamentary capacity Clitheroe v Bond [2020] EWHC 1185 (Ch) — "This is a bitter family dispute between the Claimant brother and Defendant sister as to whether their mother, the deceased, had testamentary capacity to make each of her two wills and in addition or in the alternative whether either or both wills resulted from fraudulent calumny." | 2020‑05‑21 21:42:00 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Testamentary capacity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Testamentary capacity Todd v Parsons [2019] EWHC 3366 (Ch) — "The claim was opposed by the third defendant, challenging that will on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and approval and undue influence. ... The traditional test for capacity is that laid down in Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 ... In James v James [2018] WTLR 1313, I held that the traditional test still applied, and had not been replaced by that contained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Neither party argued before me that the test should now be that contained in the 2005 Act, although the third defendant reserved the right to argue otherwise on appeal. ... In my judgment the 2008 will is valid." | 2019‑12‑14 23:57:03 | 2019 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Testamentary capacity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2019 cases
|
| * Validity of will Parsonage v Parsonage [2019] EWHC 2362 (Ch) — " The validity of the 2011 Will is challenged by D1 on the grounds that BP lacked capacity (1) to know and understand the nature and effect of the 2011 Will, (2) to know and understand the size of her estate, and/or (3) to know and appreciate the claims to which she ought to give effect. The underlying factual basis of the challenge is the severity or extent of BP's dementia and the circumstances in which the 2011 Will was prepared and executed." | 2019‑09‑16 22:39:37 | 2019 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Testamentary capacity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2019 cases
|
| * LPA attorney as substituted personal representative Whittaker v Hancock & Ors [2018] EWHC 3478 (Ch) — "The claimant has brought a claim under section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 to be appointed as substitute personal representative of the estate of John Parker in place of the second defendant, her mother, and for a caveat entered by the third defendant on 20 July 2016 to be removed. ... The third defendant is the deceased's daughter and opposes the claim. ... In a statement accompanying the Will, signed by the deceased and witnessed by a legal secretary the deceased explains that he has made no provision for the third defendant ... On 20 July 2016 the third defendant caused a caveat to be entered. She subsequently entered an appearance to the claimant's warning asserting that the 2003 Will may be invalid due to the deceased lacking testamentary capacity, being subject to undue influence and want of knowledge and approval. ... Mr Devereux-Cooke submits that I should make an order appointing the claimant as substitute personal representative for the second defendant. The claimant is the attorney for the second defendant, the LPA having been registered on 16 January 2014. The second defendant cannot consent to the claim as she lacks capacity. The first defendant does not oppose the claim. ... It is a general LPA in respect of property and financial affairs that is in wide terms enabling the claimant, as attorney, to make decisions about the second defendant's property and financial affairs. There are no conditions or restrictions specified in the instrument. ... It is also relevant that the second defendant is the sole beneficiary under the 2003 will. She is in a different position to a case where there are a number of beneficiaries. ... I accept Mr Devereux-Cooke's analysis that the claimant has standing to bring this claim under section 50. If I am wrong in my analysis I consider that the position could be remedied by adding the second defendant as a claimant and appointing the current claimant as her litigation friend. I also accept Mr Devereux-Cooke's analysis of rules 31 and 35 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 and would have been prepared to treat the claim as including this as an alternative legal route, had it been necessary. ... I consider that in order for the deceased's estate to be administered it is necessary to substitute the claimant as personal representative in place of the second defendant." | 2019‑02‑03 22:41:23 | 2018 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - substitute attorneys, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Testamentary capacity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2018 cases
|
| Gill v Woodall [2009] EWHC B34 (Ch) — "The Claimant disputes the validity of Mrs Gill's will on two grounds. They are: (1) At the time Mrs Gill executed the will she did not know and approve its contents; (2) Mrs Gill executed the will as a result of coercion or pressure exerted by Mr Gill such as to overcome Mrs Gill's volition with the consequence the will was not the result of the free volition of Mrs Gill." | 2018‑10‑23 18:37:55 | 2009 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Testamentary capacity cases, Transcript
|
| * Banks v Goodfellow test for testamentary capacity survives MCA James v James [2018] EWHC 43 (Ch) — "There is a preliminary question of law as to the test to be applied for testamentary capacity in a case like this, where the testator has made a will, died, and then the question of capacity has arisen. The traditional test for such a case is that laid down in Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549, 565, per Cockburn CJ: 'It is essential … that a testator shall understand the nature of his act and its effects; shall understand the extent of the property of which he is disposing; shall be able to comprehend and appreciate the claims to which he ought to give effect, and, with a view to the latter object, that no disorder of the mind shall poison his affections, avert his sense of right, or prevent the exercise of his natural faculties, that no insane delusion shall influence his will in disposing of his property and bring about a disposal of it which, if his mind had been sound, would not have been made.' ... More recently the Mental Capacity Act 2005 has made fresh provision for the law of mental capacity in certain situations. What is unfortunately not made express in that legislation is the extent to which this fresh provision affects the test for capacity to make a will when that question is being judged retrospectively (typically, though not necessarily, post mortem). ... The general rule of precedent, as applied in the High Court, is that that court is not strictly bound by decisions of co-ordinate jurisdiction, but will follow them as a matter of comity unless convinced they are wrong ... As it happens, I think the decision in Walker v Badmin [2014] EWHC 71 (Ch)Not on Bailii! [that the test in Banks v Goodfellow not only had survived the enactment of the 2005 Act, but that it, rather than anything in the Act, was still the sole test of capacity for judging will-making capacity in retrospect] is right, and for the reasons given by the deputy judge. ... Whilst it is a complication to have two tests for mental capacity in making wills, one prospective and the other retrospective, it is a complication created by the decision of Parliament to legislate as it has, a decision that the courts must respect." | 2018‑01‑22 22:56:10 | 2018 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Testamentary capacity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2018 cases
|
| * Testamentary capacity White v Philips [2017] EWHC 386 (Ch) — "The claimant, Linda Anne White is the testator's widow. They had married in 1988. They had no children together but each had been married before and each had three children from their respective previous marriages. She contends that at the time he gave instructions and when he signed his will Mr White lacked testamentary capacity with the result that the will is invalid and, since there was no prior will, his estate should be distributed in accordance with the rules relating to intestacy. A pleaded claim to the effect that the execution of the will was obtained by undue influence is no longer being pursued. The only matter for determination therefore is whether at the time Mr White had testamentary capacity." | 2017‑03‑06 22:02:49 | 2017 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Testamentary capacity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2017 cases
|
| * Testamentary capacity Poole v Everall [2016] EWHC 2126 (Ch) — "The claimants are David's brothers ... who had benefited under previous wills prepared with the assistance of the Deputy, including one made on 29 February 2012 of which they seek proof in solemn form, but receive nothing in the December will. They allege that that will was not duly executed, that David lacked testamentary capacity and/or did not know and approve of its contents, and/or that its execution was procured by undue influence on Mr. Everall's part." | 2016‑08‑20 21:16:39 | 2016 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Testamentary capacity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2016 cases
|
Article titles
The following 16 pages are in this category.
The following category (in the blue box) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: