Franks v Sinclair & Ors [2006] EWHC 3365 (Ch) (21 December 2006)

Franks v Sinclair & Ors [2006] EWHC 3365 (Ch) (21 December 2006)

Given the suspicious circumstances—namely, the preparation of the 1994 will by Mr Franks, a solicitor and substantial beneficiary, without independent advice, and the lack of credible evidence that Mrs Franks intended to change her longstanding testamentary dispositions in favour of Jonathan—the court found that Mr Franks failed to discharge the burden of proving that Mrs Franks knew and approved the contents of the 1994 will. The 1994 will was not admitted to probate.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 3365 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Morley Lionel Bowman Franks; Defendant: Jonathan Sinclair; Defendant: David Sinclair; Defendant: Ann Sinclair
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Probate Action / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Knowledge and Approval of Will, Testamentary Capacity, Undue Influence, Burden of Proof in Probate, Solicitor as Beneficiary
Wills and Probate Equity Knowledge and Approval of Will Testamentary Capacity Undue Influence Burden of Proof in Probate Solicitor as Beneficiary

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Morley Lionel Bowman Franks

Claimant

Jonathan Sinclair

Defendant

David Sinclair

Defendant

Ann Sinclair

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate Action / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mrs Jennie Franks knew and approved the contents of the 1994 will
  2. 2 Whether the 1994 will should be admitted to probate in solemn form

Ratio Decidendi

Given the suspicious circumstances—namely, the preparation of the 1994 will by Mr Franks, a solicitor and substantial beneficiary, without independent advice, and the lack of credible evidence that Mrs Franks intended to change her longstanding testamentary dispositions in favour of Jonathan—the court found that Mr Franks failed to discharge the burden of proving that Mrs Franks knew and approved the contents of the 1994 will. The 1994 will was not admitted to probate.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The 1994 will is not admitted to probate.
  • Probate may be granted in respect of the 1992 will.