• Search

  • Sign up to mailings

    To keep up to date with our latest news and events, please sign up for mailings.

    You are always free to unsubscribe at any time.

    Sign up

Oliver Wooding successfully acted for two executors to prove a will which was challenged by the Deceased’s daughter on grounds of testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval, and undue influence.

The Deceased had made a will in 2006 leaving appointing his son and daughter as executors and leaving his estate to them equally.  From 2013 onwards his son and daughter’s relationship had broken down and by 2016 they were not talking to each other.  The son asked, on a single occasion, the Deceased to consider appointing a professional executor.

The Deceased made a new will in 2017.  The will was made over a three month period with his long standing solicitor, where the various changes were discussed and recorded in the solicitor’s attendance notes.  The Deceased appointed his solicitor and another partner as executors, and introduced minor legacies totalling £23,000, while leaving his son and daughter as equal residuary beneficiaries.

The daughter later found out about the 2017 will and sought to persuade the Deceased to make a further will in 2018, reverting back to the appointment of her and her brother as joint executors.  The solicitor refused to proceed with the instructions because of his concerns about the daughter’s undue influence.

After the Deceased’s death, the daughter challenged the 2017 will on the three grounds.  The undue influence alleged was by both the solicitor – in seeking to have himself appointed – and by the brother – for suggesting a professional solicitor.

After a trial before HHJ Russen KC in Bristol, the daughter’s challenges to the 2017 will were dismissed and it was admitted to probate.

The judgment is notable as a particularly good example of the substantial weight which the court will give to the evidence – and judgment, so far as an assessment of capacity and undue influence is concerned – of the will draftsman where there are contemporaneous attendance notes and oral evidence, following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hughes v Pritchard.