Royal National Institute for Deaf People & Ors v Turner [2015] EWHC 3301 (Ch) (18 November 2015)

Royal National Institute for Deaf People & Ors v Turner [2015] EWHC 3301 (Ch) (18 November 2015)

The court found that the evidence of the attesting witnesses, supported by forensic evidence, constituted the strongest evidence that the 1999 Will was not executed in accordance with s 9 of the Wills Act 1837, as Mrs Whelen was not present when the witnesses signed. The presumption of due execution was rebutted. Further, the Defendant failed to prove that Mrs Whelen knew and approved the contents of the 1999 Will. The 1999 Will was therefore invalid. The court was not satisfied that the 1982 Will was revoked by destruction, and thus the 1982 Will should be admitted to probate.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 3301 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Royal National Institute for Deaf People; Claimant: Royal National Institute of Blind People; Claimant: Marie Curie Memorial Foundation; Claimant: The Institute of Cancer Research: The Royal Cancer Hospital; Defendant: Adrian Alan Turner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Probate Action / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Due Execution of Wills, Knowledge and Approval of Will Contents, Revocation of Wills, Presumption of Due Execution, Attestation Requirements
Probate Wills and Estates Due Execution of Wills Knowledge and Approval of Will Contents Revocation of Wills Presumption of Due Execution 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal National Institute for Deaf People

Claimant

Royal National Institute of Blind People

Claimant

Marie Curie Memorial Foundation

Claimant

The Institute of Cancer Research: The Royal Cancer Hospital

Claimant

Adrian Alan Turner

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate Action / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1999 Will of Dorothy Whelen was validly executed in accordance with s 9 of the Wills Act 1837
  2. 2 Whether Dorothy Whelen knew and approved the contents of the 1999 Will
  3. 3 Whether the 1982 Will was revoked by destruction

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence of the attesting witnesses, supported by forensic evidence, constituted the strongest evidence that the 1999 Will was not executed in accordance with s 9 of the Wills Act 1837, as Mrs Whelen was not present when the witnesses signed. The presumption of due execution was rebutted. Further, the Defendant failed to prove that Mrs Whelen knew and approved the contents of the 1999 Will. The 1999 Will was therefore invalid. The court was not satisfied that the 1982 Will was revoked by destruction, and thus the 1982 Will should be admitted to probate.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • The 1982 Will of Dorothy Whelen is to be admitted to probate in solemn form.
  • Application under s 116 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 granted: the interest of Mr Godfrey as executor is passed over in favour of the Claimants.