Banks v Goodfellow
A testator has capacity to make a will if he understands the nature of the act and its effects, the extent of his property, and the claims to which he ought to give effect, free from any disorder of the mind poisoning his affections.
Facts
John Banks suffered from delusions, believing that he was pursued by a man who had died and by evil spirits, and he had been confined in an asylum some years earlier. He made a will leaving his property to his niece, with whom he lived. After her death, the will was challenged by other relatives, on the ground that he lacked testamentary capacity because of his delusions.
Legal principle
The Court of Queen's Bench held that the will was valid. Cockburn CJ said that it is essential to the exercise of the power of making a will that the testator shall understand the nature of the act and its effects, shall understand the extent of the property of which he is disposing, and shall be able to comprehend and appreciate the claims to which he ought to give effect, and, with a view to the latter object, that no disorder of the mind shall poison his affections, pervert his sense of right, or prevent the exercise of his natural faculties, and that no insane delusion shall influence his will in disposing of his property. A delusion which did not affect the dispositions in the will did not deprive him of capacity. The test remains the law today.
Related cases on testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval
- Barry v Butlin (1838) 2 Moo PC 480
- Gill v Woodall [2010] EWCA Civ 1430, [2011] Ch 380
- In the Estate of Fuld (No 3) [1968] P 675
- Key v Key [2010] EWHC 408 (Ch), [2010] 1 WLR 2020
- Parker v Felgate (1883) 8 PD 171
- Simon v Byford [2014] EWCA Civ 280
- Walker v Badmin [2014] EWHC 71 (Ch)
- Wintle v Nye [1959] 1 WLR 284
Studying wills, succession and probate? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
