Carapeto v Good & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 944 (20 June 2002)

Carapeto v Good & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 944 (20 June 2002)

The judge found that, despite suspicious circumstances, the respondent had discharged the burden of proving that Miss Good knew and approved the contents of the May will. There was no error of law or misdirection as to the burden of proof, and the findings of fact were unimpeachable. The application for permission to appeal had no real prospect of success.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 944
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Natividade Ines Maricota Ferreira Carapeto; Defendant/applicant: William Marsh Good; Defendant/applicant: Jeremy Good
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Probate Action / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal, Civil Division)
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Knowledge and Approval of Will, Undue Influence, Burden of Proof, Testamentary Capacity
Wills and Probate Civil Procedure Knowledge and Approval of Will Undue Influence Burden of Proof Testamentary Capacity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Natividade Ines Maricota Ferreira Carapeto

Claimant/respondent

William Marsh Good

Defendant/applicant

Jeremy Good

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Probate Action / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal, Civil Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the testatrix knew and approved the contents of the May 1999 will
  2. 2 Whether the will was procured by undue influence

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found that, despite suspicious circumstances, the respondent had discharged the burden of proving that Miss Good knew and approved the contents of the May will. There was no error of law or misdirection as to the burden of proof, and the findings of fact were unimpeachable. The application for permission to appeal had no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application refused