Edkins v Hopkins & Ors

Edkins v Hopkins & Ors

Despite Mr Hopkins' physical frailty and episodes of confusion, the evidence, particularly from the solicitor who prepared and attended the execution of the will, established that he had testamentary capacity, knew and approved the contents of the 2014 will, and was not subject to undue influence. The will was...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Gary Raymond Edkins; Defendant: Dorothy Jane Hopkins; Defendant: Richard Phillip Hopkins; Defendant: Alistair Hopkins; Defendant: Colin Steven Hopkins
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Probate/contentious Probate / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Testamentary Capacity, Knowledge and Approval, Undue Influence, Validity of Will
Succession Law Probate Testamentary Capacity Knowledge and Approval Undue Influence Validity of Will

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Raymond Edkins

Claimant

Dorothy Jane Hopkins

Defendant

Richard Phillip Hopkins

Defendant

Alistair Hopkins

Defendant

Colin Steven Hopkins

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate/contentious Probate / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deceased, Philip Hopkins, had testamentary capacity when executing the 2014 will
  2. 2 Whether the deceased knew and approved the contents of the 2014 will
  3. 3 Whether the 2014 will was procured by undue influence

Ratio Decidendi

Despite Mr Hopkins' physical frailty and episodes of confusion, the evidence, particularly from the solicitor who prepared and attended the execution of the will, established that he had testamentary capacity, knew and approved the contents of the 2014 will, and was not subject to undue influence. The will was rational, consistent with his intentions, and the claimant did not overpower his free volition.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • 2014 will of Philip Hopkins to be admitted to probate in solemn form
  • Parties to agree a minute of order and file written submissions on consequential matters within 7 days