Analysis
The claimant, who was the only child of Cynthia Morris (the testatrix), was the principal beneficiary under her will dated 25 October 2000 but not under later wills made on 28 November 2006 and 14 July 2010 (the wills). The testatrix died on 7 August 2017. Under the terms of her last will, the second and third defendants were appointed as executors; pecuniary legacies were bequeathed to the claimant (£35,000), the first defendant (£70,000) and the fourth defendant (£10,000); and her residuary estate was gifted to the sixth to ninth defendants who were charities. The claimant first intimated a challenge to the last will in 2018 but his claim was not issued until 16 July 2020 as a result of an ‘unless’ order made by Deputy Master Collaco Moraes. The claimant, who was a litigant in person, challenged the validity of the wills on the grounds that the testatrix lacked testamentary capacity, did not know of or approve the contents, and that the wills had been procured by the undue influence and fraudulent calumny of the first defendant. On 17 February 2021 the sixth to ninth defendants applied for summary judgment to be entered against the claimant on the grounds that he had no real prospect of success.
Held (granting the application for summary judgment):
The claimant did not dispute that the wills were duly executed and the existence of perfect attestation clauses gave rise to a presumption of due execution. The burden of proof in relation to testamentary capacity therefore shifted to the claimant which he was unable to displace on the basis of either the medical records or evidence from the lawyers who prepared the wills. The claimant’s case on capacity was fanciful and had no realistic prospect of success as it amounted to a bare assertion unsupported by evidence. Similarly, the claimant’s case in relation to knowledge and approval had no realistic prospect of success given that the wills had been prepared by lawyers and had been read to the testatrix prior to execution, thereby giving rise to the presumption that they represented her testamentary intentions at the relevant times. The claimant failed to particularise any form of pressure or persuasion by the first defendant over the testatrix and his bare assertion, unsupported by evidence, that she had poisoned the testatrix’s mind was fanciful and should never have been made. The claimant’s assertion of a testamentary promise by the testatrix to leave everything to him was a mere statement of her intention at the time and not a binding obligation capable of giving rise to an estoppel or other enforceable right or interest. In short, the claimant had no real prospect of succeeding on any of his claims and there was no other compelling reason why the claim should be disposed of at trial. It followed, therefore, that there would be summary judgment for the sixth to ninth defendants, dismissing the claim and pronouncing for the force and validity of the last will of the testatrix.
JUDGMENT DEPUTY MASTER LAMPERT: The Parties [1] The Claimant, Kevin Morris, is the only child of Cynthia Morris (deceased) who died on 7 August 2017 leaving a last Will dated 14 July 2010. Mrs Morris had made two prior Wills on 28 November 2006 and 25 October 2000. The Claimant was the principal beneficiary under …Continue reading "Morris v Fuirer & ors [2022] WTLR 659"