Wintle v Nye
Where a solicitor prepares a will under which he takes a large benefit, the burden of removing the suspicion is heavy, and the jury must be directed to consider whether the testator truly knew and approved the will.
Facts
Miss Wells, an elderly woman with little business experience, made a will and codicil prepared by her solicitor, Mr Nye, under which he took the bulk of her estate of about 115,000 pounds as residuary beneficiary. Colonel Wintle, a relative, challenged the will, conducting the case himself in the House of Lords. At first instance, the jury upheld the will, and the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.
Legal principle
The House of Lords allowed the appeal, holding that the judge had misdirected the jury. Viscount Simonds said that the degree of suspicion will vary with the circumstances of the case, and that where a solicitor who has prepared a will takes a large benefit under it, the suspicion is great, and the court must be satisfied that the testator knew and approved the contents of the will, which the solicitor must prove. The judge had not made clear to the jury how heavy the burden was. The residuary gift to Mr Nye was not admitted to probate. Colonel Wintle was the first litigant in person to win a case in the House of Lords.
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
- Simon v Byford [2014] EWCA Civ 280
- Walker v Badmin [2014] EWHC 71 (Ch)
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.
