Claims To Pronounce A Will’s Validity

A person’s Will may be one of the most important documents made during their lifetime. A Will directs how the estate an individual has amassed during their lifetime shall be disposed of.

In accordance with the importance of such a document, there are stringent requirements set out in the Wills Act 1837 that must be followed in order to create a valid Will including the need for the testator to have the capacity to understand the nature and effect of the document they are executing, as determined by the test set out in Banks v Goodfellow. With many Wills being made towards the latter stages of a person’s life it is not uncommon for the validity of any Will to be questioned on the basis of lack of capacity in particular.

If you are acting as executor and the validity of a Will is challenged how should you act?

Typically the person seeking to challenge the Will should bring a claim to do so, however, this does not always follow. Alternatively, the executor may decide to seek an order from the Court that the Will is pronounced by a Judge, thus confirming its validity. A claim for a Will to be pronounced shall involve the Court hearing evidence for and against the validity of the Will before deciding whether or not the Will should stand.

A successful claim shall render the Will valid and shall prevent any further challenges from being made as to the Will’s validity. Following a Will being pronounced as valid the executor will be able to administer the estate in accordance with the Deceased’s instructions. If the Will is declared invalid then the last Will made by the deceased person shall stand in its place (unless the Deceased married subsequently). If there was no previous Will, the rules of intestacy (set out in the Administration of Estates Act 1925) shall apply.

Copley v Winter [2023] EWHC 1712 (Ch)

Case background

The recent case of Copley v Winter involved a claim being brought to “propound” (prove) a new Will made by the Deceased. The Claimant, named as Executor, argued that the Will was valid and the Defendant, a beneficiary under the old Will, alleged the new Will was created whilst the Deceased lacked capacity and as a result of the Claimant putting pressure on the Deceased (known as “undue influence”).

The Defendant’s argument was that because the Deceased was on medication (Oramorph, which is liquid morphine) and had probably taken it on the date the Will was executed, her understanding of what she was doing would have been affected and she may therefore have lacked testamentary capacity. This matter was dealt with promptly as the judge found the Deceased had not taken Oramorph on the requisite day and there was no evidence that she lacked capacity (capacity is presumed unless otherwise proven).

In considering whether the Deceased had made the Will because she was being subjected to undue influence, the Court noted that by nature undue influence is discrete – usually taking place without witnesses being physically present – and therefore limited evidence can be provided. Whilst the Court did not find the Claimant’s evidence completely reliable the suggestions that the Deceased was being subjected to undue influence were dismissed. There was sufficient evidence that the terms of the Will aligned with the Deceased’s own wishes. The Court noted that the Deceased’s primary aim was to provide for her horses and the Will drafter’s notes were very important in demonstrating the Deceased’s intentions as to the final terms of the Will.

Comment

The overall decision in this claim was to therefore “propound” the Will. Copley v Winter demonstrates that there are significant evidential burdens and difficulties in challenging the validity of a Will on the basis of undue influence but perhaps crucially, the importance of the Will writer’s meeting notes cannot be understated. This will serve as a useful guide as to how an executor may proceed when doubts have been raised as to the validity of a Will.