header-logo header-logo

31 October 2025 / Ann Stanyer
Issue: 8137 / Categories: Features , Profession , Expert Witness , Wills & Probate , Health
printer mail-detail

Choosing the right expert

234226
In retrospective assessments, it is essential to instruct an expert with the right qualifications for the case at hand, writes Ann Stanyer
  • The case of Parfitt v Jones underscores the importance of instructing an expert with the right qualifications—particularly medical expertise—when assessing testamentary capacity, especially in retrospective evaluations.
  • Retrospective assessments require detailed background, medical history and family context. In this case, the judge found the expert’s reasoning flawed.

The recent case of Parfitt v Jones and another [2025] EWHC 1552 (Ch) illustrates the importance of providing detailed instructions to your chosen capacity assessor, but also making sure that that assessor has the appropriate experience and expertise you need for the specific court proceedings.

The facts

Mrs Mary Wadge, a widow with three children, died in 2018. She signed a will in 2008, which left her share in the family home to her daughter Carolyne, various legacies and the residue divided between her son James, other beneficiaries and her grandchildren. She did not leave anything to her daughter

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll