The High Court recently handed down judgment in the contentious court battle where two siblings successfully challenged their father’s Will, which left them considerably less inheritance than their brothers.
Background
The case revolved around the validity of a Will signed in 2019 by Reg Bond, a self-made multi-millionaire tyre businessman and racehorse breeder with an empire worth £55 million. Mr Bond, had suffered from cognitive and mobility issues following a brain tumour diagnosis in 2010 and a fall in 2014, requiring round-the-clock care.
His final Will, made in November 2019, bequeathed nearly all of his £12.5 million estate to his sons Charlie and Graham, leaving his other son Mike and daughter Lindsay with £325,000 each.
Mike and Lindsay challenged the 2019 Will on the basis that Mr Bond lacked the testamentary capacity to make the Will or did not know or approve of its contents, on the basis that he was suffering from a brain tumour at the time.
The Judgment
After a 15-day trial involving evidence from 22 witnesses, Michael Green J ruled in favour of Mike and Lindsay concluding that the 2019 Will was invalid on the grounds of both lack of testamentary capacity and want of knowledge and approval.
The Judge took a “holistic” view when handing down the judgment, noting that Mr Bond had departed significantly from his previous Wills and that his last will did not represent his true testamentary wishes. He also added that the will-draftsman who prepared his 2019 will did not prepare detailed attendance notes of their meetings and that he was not convinced that Mr Bond had read the Will himself.
Charlie and Graham argued that Mr Bond had been generous during his lifetime with gifts and that his final 2019 Will was valid. They had provided the Court with doctor’s records and videos of his active lifestyle. Despite this, he found that Charlie and Graham failed to prove Mr Bond had the capacity or understood the decision that he had made. The Judge commented that ‘Greg took the videos covertly and became emotional when he was asked questions about them in cross-examination….he must have realised, that Reg was not with it at all: he looks tired, disengaged and confused.’ He also added that he believed Reg felt pressured to sign and on that basis, was quite ‘disturbed’ by these videos.
Additionally, the Judge also found that the circumstances surrounding the Will’s preparation and execution were part of a plan orchestrated by Reg’s other son, Charlie, to gain control over Reg’s financial and business affairs in a Lasting Power of Attorney.
Michael Green J accepted Mike and Lindsay’s submissions reinstated the previous 2017 Will, which divided Reg’s estate equally between his four children.
A copy of the judgment can be found here.
Key takeaways
The above case is a stern reminder to Will practitioners to ensure that attendance notes are detailed and comprehensive, accounting for everything that is discussed at each client meeting. There is no substitution for a proper attendance note in covering all eventualities if the validity of the Will is ever challenged.
Contact our Litigation and Dispute Resolution experts
Nadine Esaid is a Solicitor in the Bishop & Sewell Litigation and Dispute Resolution team. If you would like to contact a member of the team please call on 020 7631 4141 or email nesaid@bishopandsewell.co.uk.
The above is accurate as at 11 September 2024. The information above may be subject to change.
The content of this note should not be considered legal advice and each matter should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
