Gill v Woodall
A will leaving a farmer's estate to the RSPCA rather than her daughter was set aside for lack of knowledge and approval, because the testatrix's severe agoraphobia meant that she had not understood it.
Facts
Mrs Gill and her husband made mirror wills leaving their estates to each other, and then to the RSPCA, rather than to their only daughter, Christine, who had helped on the family farm for many years. Mrs Gill survived her husband, and her estate passed to the RSPCA. Christine challenged the will, arguing that her mother had not known and approved its contents, because she suffered from severe agoraphobia and panic attacks, which affected her when the will was read over to her at the solicitor's office.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision that the will was invalid for want of knowledge and approval. Lord Neuberger MR said that, although there is a strong presumption that a testator who executes a will which has been prepared by a solicitor and read over to her knows and approves its contents, the presumption can be rebutted by evidence. The evidence, including medical evidence about Mrs Gill's agoraphobia and the surrounding circumstances, showed that she had not understood the will, which was also inconsistent with her expressed intentions to provide for her daughter. The case was widely reported.
Related cases on testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval
- Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549
- Barry v Butlin (1838) 2 Moo PC 480
- 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.
