Oliver Wooding, instructed by Tim Prees of Wansbroughs, has successfully acted in Jenkins & Anor v Evans [2025] EWHC 2438 (Ch), securing proof of a contested will challenged on the grounds of testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval, and undue influence.
Oliver represented the claimants who were the putative executors of the Deceased’s will made in 2017. This had revoked an earlier will from 2006. The Deceased had two adult children. Under both wills the children were equal residuary beneficiaries. The financial difference between the two wills was modest – a reduction of £11,500 for each of the children – but the 2017 Will named professional executors rather than the two children.
The Deceased’s daughter challenged the 2017 will on the basis that the Deceased had lacked testamentary capacity to make it, did not know and approve of its contents, and was subject to undue influence by her brother.
After a trial before HHJ Russen KC in Bristol, the judge dismissed all the grounds of challenge. The judge noted the defendant’s primary concern appeared to be her loss of the executorship more than the financial changes, which made this an unusual probate claim.
The judgment is a notable example of the weight that courts will give the assessment and evidence of the will draftsman, following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hughes v Pritchard. The judge found that the will draftsman’s contemporaneous attendance notes during the will making process, and his oral evidence at trial, which was accepted, were to carry all the weight that the Court of Appeal had envisaged.
The judge also dismissed the undue influence claim. The will draftsman and the Deceased had had a number of discussions about who should be named as executors in light of the fact that his two children did not speak with each other. Ultimately the Deceased accepted the advice of the draftsman to appoint himself and a partner at his firm to act as professional executors. The draftsman also agreed to his hourly rate being charged, rather than to charge on a percentage basis of the value of the estate, for the future administration. In a welcome point for non-contentious lawyers, the judge rejected the defendant’s argument that this amounted to undue influence because of the prospect of open-ended charging in favour of the draftsman and his firm.
The defendant’s other assertion, that her brother had unduly influenced the Deceased into appointing professional executors, was also rejected.
Oliver is a member of our Wills & Trusts team, and advises, appears, and mediates (both as counsel and as a mediator) in every kind of will challenge claim. Details of his practice are available here.
A copy of the judgment can be found here.