Packer v Packer [2025] EWHC 461 (Ch)
Background
The deceased died on 5 July 2022. His wife (i.e., the Claimant) contended that he died intestate without making a valid Will, so she should be inheriting his entire estate under the rules of intestacy. His sister (i.e., the Defendant) claimed that the deceased executed a Will in 2022 (2022 Will) in accordance with a draft which the Defendant assisted in preparing for the deceased, leaving half of his estate to her, but it had not been located after the death of the deceased.
There were three main issues that the Court had to deal with:
- Whether the draft 2022 Will was created by the Defendant on the instructions of the deceased?
- If so, was the 2022 Will executed in accordance with section 9 of the Will Act 1837?
- If so, where only the draft 2022 Will had been produced following the deceased’s death, was the presumption of revocation, i.e., if a Will that is believed to have been made cannot be found, the law presumes that it must have been revoked/destroyed, rebutted?
Decision
The Court decided that the 2022 Will was not valid and granted the letters of administration to the Claimant after concluding that:
- The draft 2022 Will was created by the Defendant on the instruction of the deceased;
- The case being advanced by the Defendant was that the 2022 Will was alleged to have been taken for witnessing, attestation, and signature by independent witnesses, not also by family members.
- The Defendant’s case kept evolving throughout this case, and her positions were inconsistent with each other.
- The 2022 Will was not validly executed. The deceased did not demonstrate any settled intention to formalise his testamentary wishes, and the evidence did not consistently show that he would likely have followed through on getting the 2022 Will executed in accordance with the requisite formalities; and
- The presumption of revocation was not rebutted as the evidence reinforced the presumption.
Comment
One interesting point in the judgment of this case is in relation to the interpretation of the pleading. The Defendant invited the Court to bear in mind that the pleading was drafted by the Defendant as a litigant in person and should therefore be interpreted benevolently. The Court did not agree with this submission as it was the settled law that the Court would not adopt a different approach to interpretation of a document simply because one side is a litigant in person, who is not to be awarded a special status in civil proceedings.
How can we help?
Ronny Tang is an Associate in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in defamation claims, contentious probate and inheritance claims, Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 claims, Equality Act 2010 claims and Protection From Harassment 1997 claims.
If you need any advice concerning the subject discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Ronny or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us