Carr & Ors v Beaven & Ors

Carr & Ors v Beaven & Ors

John Watson, despite suffering from mild to moderate dementia, had testamentary capacity at the time he gave instructions for and executed the November 2000 will, as he understood the nature and effect of the will, the extent of his property, and the claims of those included and excluded. The evidence from the solicitor, medical experts, and contemporaneous documents supports this conclusion. The 2004 codicil is not valid as it is improbable that John Watson had testamentary capacity at that date.

Parties
Claimant: Derek Carr; Claimant: Margaret Helen Watson; Claimant: Alan Kenneth Cole; Defendant: Catherine Ann Beaven; Defendant: Marilyn Jane Watson; Defendant: Edwin Richard John Watson; Defendant: Janet Dixon; Defendant: Edwin Luke Watson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Probate / Judgment
Outcome
pronouncement in favour of the November 2000 will; not in favour of the 2004 codicil
Legal Topics
Testamentary Capacity, Validity of Will, Dementia and Wills
Succession Probate Testamentary Capacity Validity of Will Dementia and 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Derek Carr

Claimant

Margaret Helen Watson

Claimant

Alan Kenneth Cole

Claimant

Catherine Ann Beaven

Defendant

Marilyn Jane Watson

Defendant

Edwin Richard John Watson

Defendant

Janet Dixon

Defendant

Edwin Luke Watson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether John Watson had testamentary capacity when executing the November 2000 will
  2. 2 Whether the November 2000 will is valid
  3. 3 Whether the 2004 codicil is valid

Ratio Decidendi

John Watson, despite suffering from mild to moderate dementia, had testamentary capacity at the time he gave instructions for and executed the November 2000 will, as he understood the nature and effect of the will, the extent of his property, and the claims of those included and excluded. The evidence from the solicitor, medical experts, and contemporaneous documents supports this conclusion. The 2004 codicil is not valid as it is improbable that John Watson had testamentary capacity at that date.

Court Disposition

pronouncement in favour of the November 2000 will; not in favour of the 2004 codicil

Orders

  • Probate granted in respect of the November 2000 will
  • No grant in respect of the 2004 codicil