The Vegetarian Society & Anor v Scott

The Vegetarian Society & Anor v Scott

Mr. McKeen had testamentary capacity when making his 2006 will. The evidence established that, despite his schizophrenia and logical thought disorder, he was able to marshal his thoughts and give coherent instructions for his will and property dealings. The expert evidence of Professor Jacoby was preferred, and the lay evidence of professionals supported capacity. The defendant's case was undermined in cross-examination and did not raise sufficient doubt to displace the presumption of capacity. The 2006 will is valid.

Parties
Claimant: The Vegetarian Society; Defendant: Jennifer Mariegold Scott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Probate/contentious Probate / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; 2006 will upheld as valid.
Legal Topics
Testamentary Capacity, Validity of Will, Burden of Proof, Schizophrenia and Legal Capacity
Succession Law Mental Capacity Law Testamentary Capacity Validity of Will Burden of Proof Schizophrenia and Legal Capacity

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Vegetarian Society

Claimant

Jennifer Mariegold Scott

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate/contentious Probate / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr. McKeen had testamentary capacity when making his 2003 and 2006 wills
  2. 2 Whether the 2006 will is valid in light of Mr. McKeen's mental disorder

Ratio Decidendi

Mr. McKeen had testamentary capacity when making his 2006 will. The evidence established that, despite his schizophrenia and logical thought disorder, he was able to marshal his thoughts and give coherent instructions for his will and property dealings. The expert evidence of Professor Jacoby was preferred, and the lay evidence of professionals supported capacity. The defendant's case was undermined in cross-examination and did not raise sufficient doubt to displace the presumption of capacity. The 2006 will is valid.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; 2006 will upheld as valid.

Orders

  • The 2006 will of Mr. McKeen is declared valid.
  • The claimants are entitled to the estate in accordance with the 2006 will.