header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
14 February 2008 / Paola Fudakowska , Adam Cloherty , Paula Hewitt
Issue: 7308 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Legal services , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

Wills and probate

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Kostic v Chaplin & Others [2007] EWHC 2209 (Ch), [2007] All ER (D) 119 (Dec)

The deceased, B, made wills in 1971 and 1974 and a codicil in 1984 leaving his estate to his only son, Z. Those wills were apparently revoked by subsequent wills created in 1988 and 1989 in which B left his entire estate, worth £8.2m, to the Conservative Party Association (CPA). It was common ground that B had, from about the mid-1980s, suffered from a delusional disorder, believing that “dark forces” were conducting a “sinister and highly organised international conspiracy” against him in which various family members, including Z, were implicated. Part of B’s delusions involved him believing that only the Conservative Party, through the agency of Margaret Thatcher, could save the country from such dark forces.

After B’s death in October 2005, Z brought a claim alleging that the 1988 and 1989 wills were invalid because B lacked the testamentary capacity to execute them.
The claim succeeded. Applying Banks v Goodfellow (1871) LR 11 Eq 472, once an insane delusion was made out, the 1988 and 1989 wills should “be regarded with great distrust”. The presumption against the wills was “all the stronger” because they were “inofficious”; by leaving all his fortune to the CPA, B had plainly disregarded the claims of his close family members, for whom he would normally be expected to have affection. Mr Justice Henderson was left “in no real doubt” that the decision to disinherit Z “was heavily influenced by his delusions”, especially in the light of Z’s implication in the apparent conspiracy. Accordingly B lacked testamentary capacity when he made the 1988 and 1989 wills and probate was granted of the 1974 will.
Since he found that B’s decision was influenced by the delusions, the judge found it unnecessary to consider what he called the “fine distinction” between whether, for the will to be valid, it only had to be shown that the delusions did not in fact influence the dispositions in the will, or whether it also had to be shown that the delusions were not likely to influence those dispositions. That joy will have to await another occasion.
 
Costs
In relation to costs, the judge held that in contentious probate actions, the long-established exceptions to the usual costs rule had survived the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), namely: (i) that if a person who made the will, or persons who were interested in the residue had really been the cause of the litigation, or responsible for the litigation, a case was made out for costs to come out of the estate; and (ii) that if the testator and persons interested in the residue were blameless but where circumstances led reasonably to an investigation of the matter, then the costs might be left to be borne by those who had incurred them. Henderson J also identified a trend of more recent authorities to narrow rather than extend the circumstances in which the first exception is held to apply.
Issue: 7308 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Legal services , Wills & Probate
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Ashurst's Chief Risk Officer joins Walkers

Excello Law—John Osborne

Excello Law—John Osborne

Northern family lawyer John Osborne joins Excello

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

Trio of promotions announced at Kidderminster law firm mfg Solicitors

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Company conspiracy clarified
A sole director can conspire with their own company for the purposes of the tort of unlawful means conspiracy, the High Court has ruled in a judgment with potentially wide implications for business disputes
NLJ this week: Home is where intent lies
The Court of Appeal has reinforced that domicile depends on intention rather than residence alone, in a significant post-Brexit ruling on cross-border financial remedy claims
NLJ this week: Farewell to Chancery
The Chancery Division's long history comes to an end this autumn as it is reborn as the Business and Property Division, prompting questions over whether the shake-up is really necessary
NLJ this week: Silence carries a price
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) continues to show that failing to disclose regulatory issues can attract harsher consequences than the original misconduct itself
NLJ this week: Costs sting after a courtroom gamble
Rejecting a generous settlement can prove an expensive mistake, as two recent high-profile cases demonstrate
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll