Clitheroe v Bond [2020] EWHC 1185 (Ch) (21 May 2020)

Clitheroe v Bond [2020] EWHC 1185 (Ch) (21 May 2020)

Jean Mary Clitheroe did not lack testamentary capacity when making her 2010 and 2013 wills. Her beliefs about Susan Bond, though harsh and unreasonable, were not proven to be insane delusions or the product of fraudulent calumny. The wills are valid and should be admitted to probate.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1185 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: John Clitheroe; Defendant: Susan Bond
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Probate Dispute / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Wills propounded by John Clitheroe declared valid; probate granted.
Legal Topics
Testamentary Capacity, Fraudulent Calumny, Intestacy, Will Validity
Probate Trusts Property Testamentary Capacity Fraudulent Calumny Intestacy 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Clitheroe

Claimant

Susan Bond

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate Dispute / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deceased, Jean Mary Clitheroe, had testamentary capacity when making her 2010 and 2013 wills
  2. 2 Whether either or both wills were the product of fraudulent calumny
  3. 3 Whether Jean suffered from insane delusions or a complex grief reaction affecting her capacity

Ratio Decidendi

Jean Mary Clitheroe did not lack testamentary capacity when making her 2010 and 2013 wills. Her beliefs about Susan Bond, though harsh and unreasonable, were not proven to be insane delusions or the product of fraudulent calumny. The wills are valid and should be admitted to probate.

Court Disposition

Wills propounded by John Clitheroe declared valid; probate granted.

Orders

  • 2010 and 2013 wills admitted to probate
  • Counterclaim for intestacy dismissed