Contesting a will: Bond v Webster [2024]

Contesting a will is a complex and often emotionally charged process. A will is meant to reflect a person’s final wishes, distributing their assets and belongings according to their intentions. However, what happens when those left behind believe the will does not truly represent what the deceased wanted?

Whether it’s due to concerns over the mental capacity of the will-maker or suspicions of undue influence, contesting a will can become a necessary step for those concerned that their relatives’ last will does not reflect their wishes.

A four-week High Court trial involving two siblings saw them successfully challenging their father’s will which had initially left them just £325,000 each of their father’s £55 million estate.

Jenny Carter, Solicitor on Coodes’ Personal Disputes team, explores this case and what it means for others involved in such disputes.

The facts of the case

In his early twenties, Reg Bond was blinded in one eye by a shard of flying metal. He received a modest sum from the personal injury claim which he used to invest in a car parts business. Bond International Tyres quickly became one of the UK’s largest wholesalers, eventually reaching an approximate value of £55 million.

Mr Bond had four children, Charlie, Graham, Mike and Lindsay. In 2017, Mr Bond began estate planning. He initially divided £43.45 million in shares equally between his 4 children, in accordance with his long-established principle of fairness.

However, Mr Bond’s last will, made in November 2019, left sons Charlie and Graham nearly all the remaining £12.5 million. Mike and Lindsay were left with just £325,000 each. This was not the equal share which they had envisaged that they would inherit from their father.

Mike and Lindsay therefore challenged the November 2019 Will. It was contested on the basis that their father did not have the necessary testamentary capacity to execute the will. They produced evidence that Mr Bond suffered with serious health issues, including a brain tumour and complications from a fall. These conditions left him needing full-time care. Furthermore, around the time the 2019 will was made, he was so confused he was ‘unable to remember what he’d had for lunch’ each day.

Charlie and Graham vigorously defended Mike and Lindsay’s claim. Their position was that their father had been generous with the gifts he made in 2017, and that the will was valid. They tried to support their claim by maintaining their father was still active, suggesting that he still enjoyed gym workouts, and was planning to drive a new Bentley.

The conclusion of the case

The judge found that Charlie and Graham’s evidence was insufficient in demonstrating that Mr Bond understood the implications of the will, which departed significantly from his previous wills. All previous wills were made on the basis that Mr Bond’s Estate should be divided equally between his children.

The court therefore ordered that Mr Bond’s 2017 will should be reinstated, which ensured an equal division of Mr Bond’s Estate between his four children.

The application of legal principles

If you are considering contesting a will, there are a number of grounds upon which the validity can be challenged. In this case, Mike and Lindsay successfully claimed that Mr Bond lacked the necessary testamentary capacity to make the November 2019 will.

The legal requirements for testamentary capacity are set out in a well-established 19^th century case, Banks v Goodfellow. They are that the testator must:

1. understand the nature of the act of making a will and its effects;
2. understand the extent of the property of which they are disposing;
3. comprehend and appreciate any claims to which they ought to give effect; and
4. not suffer from any ‘disorder of the mind’ that influences their decisions regarding the disposition of their property.

If there is any doubt as to whether the testator fulfils the above conditions, the ‘Golden Rule’ applies. This suggests that will-drafters should make further enquiries about a testator’s capacity. For example, by obtaining a capacity report. Likewise, in certain circumstances, it is advisable for a medical practitioner to witness the will. They can confirm the testator’s capacity.

It has also been established in case law (Hoff v Atherton) that understanding at the time of execution of a will is not always necessary. Similarly, it does not necessarily need to be proven that the testator understood the collateral consequences of their dispositions of their property (Simon v Byford). Nevertheless, even recent cases suggest that substantial evidence must be produced to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that a testator lacked capacity to make a will.

However, if a claimant is able to establish that there is a real doubt as to the testator’s capacity, the evidential burden is shifted to the individual who is seeking to ‘propound’ (prove the validity of) the will.

Contesting a will

There are many steps which must be taken before a will invalidity claim even reaches the doors of the court. These include initial investigations and the gathering of sufficient evidence before assessing whether there is a viable claim.

Getting specialist advice at an early stage is key, and Coodes’ Inheritance Disputes team are here to help. You can get in touch with Jenny Carter via email or call on 01566 770 008. Alternatively, you can fill out our online form.