Vanessa Jean Davies v Barbara Eleanor Watts & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1177 (Ch)
Angela Frances Crew & Anor v Josephine Oakley & Ors
15 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2847 (Ch)
High Court
An elderly woman tore up her will, leaving her estate to her sister instead of her cousins. Her cousins argued she wasn’t mentally capable of doing this. The judge listened to the evidence from the solicitor who witnessed the event and a psychiatrist and decided the woman *was* capable of tearing up the will at that precise time, meaning the sister got all the money.
Key Facts
- •Carry Keats died on 15th February 2022, leaving behind a significant estate.
- •Carry's final will, made in 2020, left the majority of her estate to her cousins, the Crews, and other relatives.
- •Before her death, Carry tore up her 2020 will. Her sister, Josephine Oakley, would inherit everything as a result.
- •The claimants (the Crews and other beneficiaries under the 2020 will) argued that Carry lacked the mental capacity to revoke her will.
- •Josephine Oakley argued that Carry had the capacity to revoke the will and that she should inherit the estate.
Legal Principles
Revocation of a will requires the testator to have the requisite intention and to sufficiently destroy the will.
Section 20 of the Wills Act 1837
The mental capacity required to revoke a will is the same as that required to make a will (Banks v Goodfellow test).
Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549
The burden of proving capacity rests on the party alleging revocation.
Theobold on Wills
The court must make its own assessment of testamentary capacity, considering all evidence, both factual and expert.
Key v Key [2010] EWHC 408, Simon v Byford [2014] EWCA Civ 280, Leonard v Leonard [2024] EWHC 321 (Ch)
In the absence of cross-examination, a court may give less weight to criticisms of an expert report (Tui v Griffiths).
Tui v Griffiths [2023] UKSC 48
Outcomes
The claim was dismissed.
The court found that Carry Keats had sufficient mental capacity to revoke her will at the time she destroyed it. The court accepted the solicitor's testimony regarding the events surrounding the will's destruction and weighed it against expert medical evidence.