Vanessa Jean Davies v Barbara Eleanor Watts & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1177 (Ch)
Jennifer Baker & Anor v Diane Hewston
5 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1145 (Ch)
High Court
A man made many wills, changing who got his stuff. He had dementia, but a judge checked each will to see if he knew what he was doing. Most wills were okay, even though some were unfair, because he understood his actions. One very early will was thrown out as the judge wasn't convinced he knew what he was doing when he made it.
Key Facts
- •Stanley, the testator, made several wills over a decade, with beneficiaries changing frequently.
- •Stanley was diagnosed with dementia in 2009.
- •Diane, the defendant, challenged the validity of Stanley's 2020 will, arguing he lacked testamentary capacity from 2014 onwards.
- •The claimants, Jennifer and Emma (Stanley's executors), sought a grant of probate for the 2020 will.
- •Diane settled her claim, receiving a payment from the estate.
- •Martin, another beneficiary, did not participate in the litigation.
Legal Principles
Testamentary capacity is determined by the common law test in Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549.
Banks v Goodfellow
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) does not apply to testamentary capacity in probate cases, but its principles are consistent with the common law.
Walker v Badmin [2015] WTLR 493; James v James [2017] WTLR 1313
There is a presumption of testamentary capacity if the will is duly executed and appears rational on its face.
Re Key [2010] 1 WLR 2020
The Golden Rule for solicitors to obtain a medical opinion on capacity is a rule of practice, not law.
Re Key; Burns v Burns
The test for capacity is issue-specific; understanding of reasonably foreseeable consequences is required, but the bar is not set too high.
Hoff v Atherton; ALA v JB
Outcomes
Stanley's 2009 will was invalid due to lack of testamentary capacity.
The will was made shortly after compulsory hospitalisation, omitted Agnes (his wife), lacked contemporaneous evidence, and raised concerns regarding his understanding of claims and potential mental disorders.
Stanley's 2010 will was valid.
It was duly executed, rationally explained, and there was evidence of capacity.
Stanley's 2014 will was valid.
Despite potentially deteriorating mental health days after execution, the will was duly executed, rational on its face, and there was sufficient evidence of capacity at the time of execution.
Stanley's 2017 and 2018 wills were valid.
Both wills were duly executed and rationally explained. The disinheritance of Martin in 2017 was a harsh but rational decision based on their falling out.
Stanley's 2020 will was valid.
Despite the exclusion of Martin, the will was duly executed, and there was sufficient evidence that Stanley understood the nature and effects of the will, possessed the relevant property information, understood the claims of the beneficiaries, and that his mental state did not impair his decision-making.