Wrangle v Brunt & Anor [2020] EWHC 1784 (Ch) (06 July 2020)

Wrangle v Brunt & Anor [2020] EWHC 1784 (Ch) (06 July 2020)

The court found that the will dated 2 March 1999 was not a forgery and was executed as claimed. The evidence, including contemporaneous documents, credible witness testimony, and the absence of convincing evidence of fabrication, established that Dean Brunt intended the documents to be his will, and they were duly executed with knowledge and approval. The Defendants failed to discharge the burden of proving forgery or lack of due execution. The grant of letters of administration to the First Defendant was revoked.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1784 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Winston Neville Wrangle; First Defendant: Mrs Marlene Alicia Brunt; Second Defendant: Mr Dale Colin Charles Brunt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Probate Claim / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Validity of Will, Forgery, Due Execution, Knowledge and Approval, Revocation of Grant of Administration
Probate Wills and Estates Trusts Validity of Will Forgery Due Execution Knowledge and Approval Revocation of Grant of Administration

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Winston Neville Wrangle

Claimant

Mrs Marlene Alicia Brunt

First Defendant

Mr Dale Colin Charles Brunt

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate Claim / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the will dated 2 March 1999 propounded by the Claimant is a valid will of Dean Ashley James Brunt
  2. 2 Whether the will was forged or created after Dean's death
  3. 3 Whether the will was duly executed and Dean had knowledge and approval of its contents

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the will dated 2 March 1999 was not a forgery and was executed as claimed. The evidence, including contemporaneous documents, credible witness testimony, and the absence of convincing evidence of fabrication, established that Dean Brunt intended the documents to be his will, and they were duly executed with knowledge and approval. The Defendants failed to discharge the burden of proving forgery or lack of due execution. The grant of letters of administration to the First Defendant was revoked.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Grant of letters of administration to the First Defendant revoked
  • Probate granted in respect of the will dated 2 March 1999