Kentfield v Wright

Kentfield v Wright

The evidence presented by the claimant was not sufficiently strong to rebut the presumption of due execution. The will was regular on its face, contained an attestation clause, and the court found on the balance of probabilities that both witnesses were present when the will was signed and attested. The will was therefore duly executed in accordance with section 9 of the Wills Act 1837.

Parties
Claimant: Maureen Kentfield; Defendant: Peter Charles Wright
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Probate / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Due Execution of Wills, Attestation Requirements, Presumption of Due Execution
Succession Probate Due Execution of Wills Attestation Requirements Presumption of Due Execution

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

Parties

Maureen Kentfield

Claimant

Peter Charles Wright

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence presented by the claimant was not sufficiently strong to rebut the presumption of due execution. The will was regular on its face, contained an attestation clause, and the court found on the balance of probabilities that both witnesses were present when the will was signed and attested. The will was therefore duly executed in accordance with section 9 of the Wills Act 1837.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim for revocation of probate is dismissed.
  • The will of Gladys Lilian Wright dated 14th July 1999 is declared valid.