Dunstan v Ball [2024] EWHC 2105 (Ch) (09 August 2024)

Dunstan v Ball [2024] EWHC 2105 (Ch) (09 August 2024)

The will was validly executed in accordance with section 9 of the Wills Act 1837. The evidence did not establish want of knowledge and approval, undue influence, or fraudulent calumny. The deceased understood and approved the contents of the will, which was prepared and explained by an independent solicitor. The circumstances did not arouse sufficient suspicion to displace the presumption of validity, and the defendant failed to discharge the burden of proof on the allegations made.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2105 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Corinne Dunstan; Defendant: Andrea Ball
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Probate/contentious Will / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; will upheld as valid
Legal Topics
Knowledge and Approval of Will, Undue Influence, Fraudulent Calumny, Execution of Wills
Probate Wills and Estates Civil Procedure Knowledge and Approval of Will Undue Influence Fraudulent Calumny Execution 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Corinne Dunstan

Claimant

Andrea Ball

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate/contentious Will / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the will of Michelle Rosemary Wilkins dated 15 June 2016 should be set aside for want of knowledge and approval, undue influence, or fraudulent calumny; whether the will was validly executed in accordance with section 9 of the Wills Act 1837

Ratio Decidendi

The will was validly executed in accordance with section 9 of the Wills Act 1837. The evidence did not establish want of knowledge and approval, undue influence, or fraudulent calumny. The deceased understood and approved the contents of the will, which was prepared and explained by an independent solicitor. The circumstances did not arouse sufficient suspicion to displace the presumption of validity, and the defendant failed to discharge the burden of proof on the allegations made.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; will upheld as valid

Orders

  • Probate in solemn form granted in respect of the will of Michelle Rosemary Wilkins dated 15 June 2016
  • Defendant's counterclaim dismissed