Edkins v Hopkins & ors [2016] EWHC 2542 (Ch)

Analysis

The claimant was a friend and business colleague of Philip Hopkins, and the executor and main beneficiary under Mr Hopkins’ will dated 6 June 2014. The will draftsman, a partner in a law firm, attended Mr Hopkins at his home with two members of the firm’s staff who witnessed his signature. During the execution of the will, she noticed that Mr Hopkins was unwell and later that day he was readmitted into hospital. He died ten days later on 19 August 2014, having been diagnosed with unspecified alcoholic liver damage.

The claimant brought a claim to prove the validity of the 2014 will in solemn form. The defendants, namely the deceased’s wife and his three sons from a previous marriage, challenged the will on the grounds of testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and approval and undue influence.

Held:

1. 1) The deceased had sufficient testamentary capacity when he gave instructions for his will and on the date of execution. The evidence of the experienced will draftsman, who had kept a detailed attendance note, was that the deceased understood the nature of his act and its effects, the extent of his property and the nature of the claims upon him (Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 11 EQ 472 applied). Her evidence was consistent with the GP’s notes from the day the will was executed.
2. 2) Having regard to the character, state of mind and wishes of the deceased, the deceased knew and approved of the contents of his will (Gill v RSPCA [2010] EWCA Civ 1430 applied). Likewise, under the traditional two-part test of knowledge and approval, while the deceased’s poor health, confusion and memory lapses may excite suspicion, nonetheless the court was satisfied that the deceased knew and approved of the 2014 will.
3. 3) The deceased was a free agent in respect of his will. Although the deceased was physically and mentally vulnerable and the claimant had encouraged the deceased, it was a step too far to say that the deceased’s free volition had been overpowered by the claimant, by a ‘drip drip’ approach or otherwise. It was relevant that the deceased had a long-standing desire that his business would continue after his death, and that the claimant represented the best prospect for fulfilling this wish.

JUDGMENT HHJ JARMAN QC: [1] Around midday on 6 June 2014 Philip Hopkins executed his last will (the 2014 will) in the presence of a solicitor Christine Preece who had drawn it up. Miss Preece is and was a partner in the firm of Milwyn Jenkins Solicitors, the other partner being Nicholas Jones. She attended …

Continue reading "Edkins v Hopkins & ors [2016] EWHC 2542 (Ch)"