Mundil-Williams v Williams & Ors [2021] EWHC 586 (Ch) (16 March 2021)

Mundil-Williams v Williams & Ors [2021] EWHC 586 (Ch) (16 March 2021)

The court found that the testator did not have knowledge and approval of the contents of the 2014 Will, as he misunderstood its effect and did not appreciate that the farm would pass absolutely to Richard, contrary to his intentions; therefore, the 2014 Will did not represent his testamentary intentions and was invalid.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 586 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Timothy Mundil-Williams; First Defendant: Richard John Williams; Second Defendant: Thomas Owen Williams; Third Defendant: William Ifor Williams; Fourth Defendant: Susan Williams
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Probate Dispute / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; 2014 Will declared invalid for want of knowledge and approval.
Legal Topics
Knowledge and Approval of Will, Testamentary Intention, Validity of Will, Construction of Wills
Wills and Probate Property Law Knowledge and Approval of Will Testamentary Intention Validity of Will Construction of Wills

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Timothy Mundil-Williams

Claimant

Richard John Williams

First Defendant

Thomas Owen Williams

Second Defendant

William Ifor Williams

Third Defendant

Susan Williams

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate Dispute / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the testator, John Williams, knew and approved the contents of the 2014 Will
  2. 2 Whether the 2014 Will represented the testator's testamentary intentions

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the testator did not have knowledge and approval of the contents of the 2014 Will, as he misunderstood its effect and did not appreciate that the farm would pass absolutely to Richard, contrary to his intentions; therefore, the 2014 Will did not represent his testamentary intentions and was invalid.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; 2014 Will declared invalid for want of knowledge and approval.

Orders

  • Pronouncement against the validity of the 2014 Will dated 21 July 2014.
  • Pronouncement in favour of the validity of the 1990 Will dated 5 October 1990.