Hawes v Burgess & Anor

Hawes v Burgess & Anor

The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the deceased did not affirmatively know and approve the contents of the 2007 Will, given the controlling influence of Julia, misinformation provided to the solicitor, and lack of opportunity for the deceased to check the draft. The court's concerns about knowledge and approval were not allayed by the evidence, and the burden was not discharged by Julia.

Parties
Appellant: Julia Hawes; Respondent: Elizabeth Burgess; Respondent: Peter Burgess
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Probate Action / Appeal From Central London County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Testamentary Capacity, Knowledge and Approval, Will Validity
Succession Probate Testamentary Capacity Knowledge and Approval Will Validity

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julia Hawes

Appellant

Elizabeth Burgess

Respondent

Peter Burgess

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Probate Action / Appeal From Central London County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deceased lacked testamentary capacity at the time of making the 2007 Will
  2. 2 Whether the deceased knew and approved the contents of the 2007 Will

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the deceased did not affirmatively know and approve the contents of the 2007 Will, given the controlling influence of Julia, misinformation provided to the solicitor, and lack of opportunity for the deceased to check the draft. The court's concerns about knowledge and approval were not allayed by the evidence, and the burden was not discharged by Julia.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal against the order pronouncing against the validity of the 2007 Will is dismissed.
  • The earlier 1996 Will is upheld as valid.