Ledger v Wootton [2007] All ER (D) 99 (Oct), Boudh v Bodh [2007] EWCA Civ 1019, [2007] All ER (D) 384 (Oct)
On the evidence the judge felt compelled to hold that Mrs Wootton lacked capacity at the date of the will and accordingly the grant was revoked. The judge suggested that the defendants should take out the letters of administration because they had completed the administration and were ready to distribute.
Boudh v Bodh [2007] EWCA Civ 1019, [2007] All ER (D) 384 (Oct)
This was an appeal against a decision that a will made by Mrs Chumber in favour of her two grandsons (A and V) (the November will) was valid as opposed to an earlier will in favour of the deceased’s eldest son, the claimant (C). C argued that the November will was executed and produced in suspicious circumstances. The individuals who prepared the November will also prepared another will in similar terms to the November will which Mr Justice Evans- Lombe found at first instance to be invalid due to the third witness’s signature being forged. The burden of proof was on A and V to show that Mrs Chumber knew and approved the contents of the November will. On appeal C argued that no judge who properly directed himself could reasonably have reached the conclusion that the November will was valid because the evidence of A and V was inadequate to discharge the burden of proof. Furthermore, Evans-Lombe J had failed in his judgment to mention or quote from the leading probate case Wintle v Nye [1959] 1 All ER 552.
The Court of Appeal held that the suspicious circumstances were not as serious as in Wintle. The main witness (O) did not benefit from the November will and so there was no benefit to her to give false evidence. They accepted that O’s evidence was slightly inconsistent but “no court could expect complete consistency, let alone perfect recollection, by witnesses giving evidence in July 2006 about events...in November 2000”. The November will reflected a “change of testamentary intention that was not so suspect or irrational as to require very much in the way of further evidence to prove that the Deceased knew and approved the contents”.
The court also held that Evans-Lombe J had correctly summarised the relevant law in his own words and the criticism against him for not mentioning Wintle specifically was misconceived. The costs decision was upheld. C’s costs did not come out of the estate and there was no order as to costs between C and A.
Ledger v Wootton [2007] All ER (D) 99 (Oct)
Under Mrs Wootton’s will dated 29 October 1993 (the will), half her estate went to the defendants and half to her grandchildren. The defendants obtained probate in November 2004.The claimant sought revocation of the grant of probate on the basis that Mrs Wootton, the mother of the claimant and defendants, lacked testamentary capacity when she made the will. Judge Norris QC found that the will was rational on the face of it and so Mrs Wootton was presumed to have capacity at the time of its execution. However, the claimant provided evidence which showed that Mrs Wootton had a long history of mental illness. The medical evidence indicated that she was disturbed at the time that the will was executed, as a result of “a potentially disabling condition that cannot simply be put down to fickleness of affection or a manipulative character”.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
