Kentfield v Wright [2010] EWHC 1607 (Ch) (01 July 2010)

Kentfield v Wright [2010] EWHC 1607 (Ch) (01 July 2010)

The evidence was not strong enough to rebut the presumption of due execution arising from the regularity of the will and the attestation clause. The court found that both witnesses were present when the deceased signed the will and both signed in the presence of the deceased and each other. Therefore, the will was duly executed in accordance with section 9 of the Wills Act 1837.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1607 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Maureen Kentfield; Defendant: Peter Charles Wright
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Probate Claim (challenge to Validity of Will) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Due Execution of Wills, Attestation Requirements, Presumption of Due Execution, Section 9 Wills Act 1837
Wills and Probate Civil Procedure Due Execution of Wills Attestation Requirements Presumption of Due Execution Section 9 Wills Act 1837

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maureen Kentfield

Claimant

Peter Charles Wright

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate Claim (challenge to Validity of Will) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the will of Gladys Lilian Wright dated 14 July 1999 was duly executed in accordance with section 9 of the Wills Act 1837

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence was not strong enough to rebut the presumption of due execution arising from the regularity of the will and the attestation clause. The court found that both witnesses were present when the deceased signed the will and both signed in the presence of the deceased and each other. Therefore, the will was duly executed in accordance with section 9 of the Wills Act 1837.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for revocation of grant of probate dismissed
  • Validity of will dated 14 July 1999 upheld