Contesting a Will: The Case of Bond v Webster [2024] and the Importance of Testamentary Capacity

In Bond & Anr v Webster & Ors (2024) the validity of the Deceased’s Will was called into question.  The trial focussed very much upon the instructions given to the solicitors who would prepare the final Will which was the battleground for this particular dispute.   

Reg Bond started life humbly but rose spectacularly, via tyres.  He created a tyre business worth over £400m.  But when he died, two of children called into question his last Will which benefitted his other two children, the full siblings of the defendants who challenged the last Will made in 2019.  It was always Reg’s intention his Estate would be split between his four children—Lindsay, Mike, Greg, and Charlie.  But following his death in 2021 Lindsay and Mike discovered they had been excluded from the last Will.  

The Judge stressed testators can do whatever they like in their wills and they do not have to justify what they have done.   Nor do those who seek to propound such wills.   But if there is any doubt as to the testator’s capacity or whether the will does truly reflect their testamentary wishes, both capacity and knowledge and approval do need to be proved on the balance of probabilities by those seeking to uphold the will.  The only issues at stake were:

1. Whether Reg had testamentary capacity at the time he executed the 2019 Will and codicil; and
2. Whether Reg knew and approved of the contents of the 2019 Will and codicil.

The Judge found on both counts Reg ‘s instructions fell rather short.  He determined that by 2019, Reg lacked the capacity to make a valid will and did not know and approved its contents.   There was also a great of secrecy surrounding the preparation of the 2019 Will and the Judge stated it “fairly obvious” Reg seemed to be being controlled by the supervising solicitor of the firm drafting the Will and Charlie which occurred during the sale of the business and that Lindsay and Mike were deliberately kept out of the picture, whilst noting no beneficiary has a right to be consulted at any stage.  The Judge went as far as saying Reg didn’t even want a new Will.  The solicitors were strongly criticised by the Judge for their conduct in not acting independently and in Reg’s best interests and not taking steps to ensure Reg gave clear and informed decisions about his testamentary wishes in what was a complex Estate dealing with substantial and valuable assets.  The Judge stated that whilst the drafting solicitor was not expected to “be a bloodhound and constantly suspicious about what was going on”….her “her job was to take instructions from her client and convert those instructions into documents for the client to sign in accordance with their wishes”.  Neither did they obtain medical opinion (“the Golden Rule”) as to Reg’s testamentary capacity when he was suffering from the effects of a known brain tumour (and had such a report been duly obtained), all this litigation could have been avoided.   Therefore the 2017 will, which divides Reg’s estate equally among his four children, would be admitted to probate.  

If you wish to obtain advice concerning a contested Will, please contact Noel McNicholas on 01926 887700 or noel.mcnicholas@thomasflavell.co.uk.