Simon v Byford
Testamentary capacity requires the ability to understand the effect of the will being made, but not the ability to recall the reasons for previous wills or every potential consequence of the new will for other arrangements.
Facts
Mrs Simon made a will on her 88th birthday, which divided her residuary estate equally between her four grandchildren, including her shares in a family company. The effect was to change the balance of control of the company, compared with an earlier will. She was suffering from mild to moderate dementia. One of her sons challenged the will, arguing that she lacked capacity because she was unable to recall the reasons for her earlier will or understand the effect on control of the company.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld the will. Lewison LJ said that the test is capacity rather than actual understanding, and that the question is whether the testatrix had the ability to understand the essential elements of the will being made. It was not necessary that she should be able to recall the reasons for her earlier will, or to understand the collateral consequences of the will for the control of the family company, which was not a matter going to the essence of the dispositions. The judge had been entitled to find that she had testamentary capacity.
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
- Key v Key [2010] EWHC 408 (Ch), [2010] 1 WLR 2020
- Parker v Felgate (1883) 8 PD 171
- 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.
