James v Scudamore & Ors [2023] EWHC 996 (Ch) (03 May 2023)

James v Scudamore & Ors [2023] EWHC 996 (Ch) (03 May 2023)

The court found the codicil was executed in accordance with the Wills Act 1837: Ivor signed the codicil in the presence of both attesting witnesses, who then signed in his and each other's presence. The attestation clause was regular, and the solicitor's instructions were followed. The evidence of the claimant and his witnesses was unreliable and not corroborated. The date on the codicil was correct. There was no evidence Christine completed Ivor's signature. The codicil is valid.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 996 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Martyn James; First Defendant: Lorraine Anne Scudamore; Second Defendant: Raymond James; Third Defendant: Edward Ernest Ford; Fourth Defendant: Robert Martyn Litten James; Fifth Defendant: Rebecca Diane Litten James; Sixth Defendant: Elizabeth Rachel Litten James
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Probate Claim / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; codicil upheld as valid.
Legal Topics
Validity of Testamentary Documents, Execution of Codicils, Compliance With Wills Act 1837, Burden of Proof in Probate, Attestation Requirements
Probate Property Law Validity of Testamentary Documents Execution of Codicils Compliance With Wills Act 1837 Burden of Proof in Probate Attestation Requirements

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martyn James

Claimant

Lorraine Anne Scudamore

First Defendant

Raymond James

Second Defendant

Edward Ernest Ford

Third Defendant

Robert Martyn Litten James

Fourth Defendant

Rebecca Diane Litten James

Fifth Defendant

Elizabeth Rachel Litten James

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate Claim / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2002 codicil to Ivor Percy James's will was validly executed under the Wills Act 1837
  2. 2 Whether the attesting witnesses signed before or after the testator
  3. 3 Whether the codicil was signed on the date stated

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the codicil was executed in accordance with the Wills Act 1837: Ivor signed the codicil in the presence of both attesting witnesses, who then signed in his and each other's presence. The attestation clause was regular, and the solicitor's instructions were followed. The evidence of the claimant and his witnesses was unreliable and not corroborated. The date on the codicil was correct. There was no evidence Christine completed Ivor's signature. The codicil is valid.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; codicil upheld as valid.

Orders

  • Probate of will and codicil stands; no fresh grant of probate of will alone.
  • Costs to be determined as per standard procedure.