Key v Key
An elderly testator's capacity was impaired by grief following his wife's death, so a will made a week later was invalid, and the solicitor should have followed the golden rule of obtaining a medical opinion.
Facts
Mr Key, an elderly farmer, made a new will one week after the death of his wife of 65 years, which changed his previous dispositions significantly in favour of his daughters and away from his sons. The will was prepared by a solicitor who did not obtain a medical opinion on his capacity, or keep a proper attendance note. The sons challenged the will, on the grounds of lack of capacity and lack of knowledge and approval.
Legal principle
Briggs J held that the will was invalid. He said that the test in Banks v Goodfellow had to be applied in the light of modern understanding of mental illness, and that affective disorders, including the effects of bereavement, could affect testamentary capacity, as well as cognitive impairments. The evidence showed that Mr Key had been severely affected by grief, which impaired his capacity to make a new will involving complex decisions about the claims of his children. The solicitor should have followed the golden rule, under which the making of a will by an aged or seriously ill testator should be witnessed or approved by a medical practitioner.
Related cases on testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval
- Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549
- 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
- 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.
