Probate Disputes – a Key decision

Briggs J’s decision in Key v Key, a Chancery probate dispute, was handed down last week.

George Key, an 89 year old farmer lost his wife of 65 years in December 2006. A week later he made a Will leaving his two daughters £300,000 each, the bulk of his estate,  unchanged at his death in August 2008. His previous Will in 2001, in the context that his wife Sybil survived him, made provision for his daughter Jane to receive £10,000, his daughter Mary £5,000 and his 2 sons, Richard and John, Hall Farm and the residue of his estate.

The sons contested the 2006 Will, maintaining, in effect, that the 2001 version should prevail. After hearing evidence from 20 factual witnesses, including 2 expert psychiatrists, the issue for Mr Justice Briggs to decide was whether George Key, elderly and grief-ridden, had testamentary capacity in 2006 when he made the last Will. In a conclusion extending the ambit of the traditional tests of capacity, based on comprehension, laid down so long ago as 1870 in Banks v Goodfellow, the Court decided that “Mr Key was simply unable during the week following his wife’s death to exercise the decision-making powers required of a testator ” which ..”compels a conclusion that he did not know and approve the contents of his will”. The sisters were therefore subtantially disentitled, as the greter part of the Estate passed under the 2001 Will to their brothers.

The case is of interest not just for the furious family dispute put in evidence to the Court, but for the wider approach to capacity promoted in Mr Justice Briggs words “by the greater understanding of the mind now available from modern psychiatric medicine, in particular as to affective disorder.” It is also interesting in that it highlights that where you might have thought that in the 20 months or so before he died, if he thought at any time his Will did not reflect his current wishes, George Key could have changed it (and didn’t), that of itself is irrelevant. The key consideration is the testator’s capacity at the time the will is entered into, a circumstance which the solicitor on the case, a Mr Cadge, failed to take into account. Had he done so, then he would have obeyed the Golden Rule, requiring him to satisy himself of mental capacity with the assistance of a suitably qualified medical practitioner, as near as possible to the signing of the Will itself.

Mr Justice Briggs felt that whilst he had dealt with the legal issues before him the family would remain divided. It remains to be seen whether that  results in an appeal, or perhaps consideration of action against the draftsman and overseer of the overturned Will in this case. Either way, in matters of this nature, it pays to take appropriate steps during the testator’s lifetime.