CONTESTING A WILL WITH WILLCLAIM SOLICITORS NO WIN NO FEESPECIALISTS – DOES BOND AND BOND V WEBSTER, DADDY, BOND ANDBOND [2024] EWHC 1972 (Ch) REOPEN THE WILL DISPUTE OR WILLCONTEST FLOODATES?
Will claim Solicitors, specialist no win no fee will dispute and will contest Solicitors, discuss
whether the decision of Mr Justice Michael Green in Bond and Another v Webster and
others, is likely to reopen the Will dispute or Will contest floodgates
The effect of the earlier decision by the Court of Appeal in Hughes v Pritchard
The first instance decision in Hughes v Pritchard provided that a Will seemingly
scrupulously prepared by a Solicitor, who also obtained a supportive medical report
(confirming capacity) from the testator’s GP, was nevertheless invalid, since there had been
no detailed consideration of the terms of a previous Will.
I can recall getting quite excited about this since I had a number of cases potentially
(positively) affected by this. Unfortunately, that excitement was almost immediately
punctured by the firm counter decision by the Court of Appeal in the same matter, effectively slapping this down:
Hughes v Pritchard & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 386 (24 March 2022) (bailii.org)
I published a short blog on the decision shortly afterwards:
This wasn’t a really surprising outcome albeit disappointing for many of my clients at the
time. However, it may be difficult not to agree the Court of Appeal were broadly correct in
their approach. There has to be some limit on the scope of enquiries that Solicitors and other
professionals should be required to carry out to determine capacity (and/or knowledge and
approval) bearing in mind in many instances, their fees in preparing and executing Wills are
only a few hundreds of pounds (and are still complained about!).
Has Bond and Bond v Webster, Daddy, Bond and Bond [2024] EWHC 1972 (Ch)
reopened the Will dispute or Will contest floodgates?
This is a first instance decision so the answer is probably no! It is however, one that is likely
to carry considerable weight given the lawyers involved are leaders in this field and the
identity of the Judge (Mr Justice Michael Green). In particular, it provides a very helpful
analysis of most of the primary authorities which I intend to report on in a later blog.
I have provided a link here:
Bond & Anor v Webster & Ors [2024] EWHC 1972 (Ch) (02 August 2024) (bailii.org)
The decision (lost by the Claimants who sought to propound a Will and Codicil executed in
2019) concentrated on Will validity in relation to testamentary capacity and knowledge and
approval. The Claimants were found to have the burden of proving capacity (and knowledge
and approval) notwithstanding the Will (and Codicil I believe) were prepared by an experienced legal practitioner (albeit not a Solicitor) who also took steps to obtain a
supporting report from the deceased’s treating doctor. In many respects then it is the opposite outcome one could expect, in the light of Hughes.
What turned the tide?
This case was heard over 4 weeks – both sides deploying leading Counsel and senior Juniors. Although it concerned a multimillion pound estate and a superficial consideration of the facts might throw up a question or two about whether the ultimately successful defendants could have had any confidence in their position, there seems to be one key piece of evidence at least which may have strengthened it (and of course there will have been other matters which are not necessarily mentioned in the Judgment). Videos seem to have been taken of the testator during transactions which were reasonably contemporaneous to the disputed Will/Codicil. This is mentioned at paragraphs 526 and 527 (copied and pasted below) and speak for themselves:
From mid-2019, I do not believe that any conclusions can be drawn in relation to Reg’s signature on
other documents. I am particularly concerned about the August PoA because of Greg’s videos of that
event and Reg’s signing of the document. Those videos, and another video taken on 3 September 2019,
have had an impact on me in relation to Reg’s capacity. From the videos of 7 August 2019, I would not
have been satisfied as to Reg’s capacity to sign the August PoA, and Greg’s reason for videoing this
backfired. I think this was obvious to everyone and Ms Stanley KC virtually admitted that this would
have been classed as a bad day. But she said that he clearly did not present like that to Ms Martin as it
would have been noted by Ms Martin that he was in that state and that she was therefore not satisfied as
to his capacity.
- The 3 September 2019 video was taken by Ms Webster and it showed Ms da Silva asking Reg some
very basic questions – “how many walks you’ve been on today?”; “where are you going in November?”
– and shows Reg singing and generally being treated in an infantilised way by those caring for him.
This was when he was “in good form”, as Ms Webster said to Charlie when sending him the video. But
this seems to me to demonstrate further that Reg was not very with it and had, by then, a generally
unsophisticated approach to life, needing to be cajoled into action. He had to be made “fresh” in order
to be able to perform at important meetings.
If you consider any of these facts and matters are of interest, are likely to apply to you, or you would like to ask us for more information about our no win no fee arrangement, or you
simply want us to assess your claim, then please do not hesitate to contact us for a confidential no strings chat and/or visit us at www.willclaim.com.
We provide details about our no win no fee arrangements at https://www.willclaim.com/no-
win-no-fee/.