Lim v Thompson [2009] EWHC 3341 (Ch) (14 October 2009)

Lim v Thompson [2009] EWHC 3341 (Ch) (14 October 2009)

None of the three purported wills were duly executed in accordance with section 9 of the Wills Act 1837. The documents were irregular, suspicious, and in the case of the December 2006 will, consisted of a photocopied signature, which does not satisfy the statutory requirement for signature by the testator. The presumption of due execution does not arise in these circumstances, and the claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 3341 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Katherine Lim; Defendant: Alistair Thompson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Probate Claim (revocation of Grant of Letters of Administration) / Trial of Preliminary Issue (due Execution of Wills)
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Due Execution of Wills, Testamentary Capacity, Knowledge and Approval, Suspicious Circumstances, Burden of Proof
Probate Wills and Estates Due Execution of Wills Testamentary Capacity Knowledge and Approval Suspicious Circumstances Burden of Proof

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 1 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Katherine Lim

Claimant

Alistair Thompson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate Claim (revocation of Grant of Letters of Administration) / Trial of Preliminary Issue (due Execution of Wills)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether any of the three purported wills (22 October 2006, 25 October 2006, 14 December 2006) were duly executed in accordance with section 9 of the Wills Act 1837
  2. 2 Whether the presumption of due execution applies in the circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the circumstances surrounding the production and attestation of the wills give rise to suspicion

Ratio Decidendi

None of the three purported wills were duly executed in accordance with section 9 of the Wills Act 1837. The documents were irregular, suspicious, and in the case of the December 2006 will, consisted of a photocopied signature, which does not satisfy the statutory requirement for signature by the testator. The presumption of due execution does not arise in these circumstances, and the claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for revocation of grant of letters of administration dismissed
  • None of the three purported wills admitted to probate