White v Philips [2017] EWHC 386 (Ch) (27 February 2017)

White v Philips [2017] EWHC 386 (Ch) (27 February 2017)

The defendant discharged the burden of proving that Mr White had testamentary capacity at the relevant times. The evidence, including that of the solicitor, social worker, and expert Dr McWilliam, established that Mr White understood the nature and effect of the will, the extent of his property, and the claims upon him, and was not subject to a disorder of mind influencing his decisions. The will was rational, fair, and just, and Mr White knew and approved its contents. The errors in the solicitor's pro forma did not indicate lack of capacity. The will is valid and should be propounded.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 386 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Linda Anne White; Defendant: Susan Philips
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Probate Dispute (challenge to Will) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Will propounded; claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Testamentary Capacity, Validity of Will, Burden of Proof, Knowledge and Approval, Effect of Medication on Capacity
Wills and Probate Mental Capacity Law Testamentary Capacity Validity of Will Burden of Proof Knowledge and Approval Effect of Medication on Capacity

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linda Anne White

Claimant

Susan Philips

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate Dispute (challenge to Will) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Raymond Ian White had testamentary capacity when he gave instructions for and executed his will on 28 May and 4 June 2010
  2. 2 Whether the will should be propounded or the estate distributed under intestacy

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant discharged the burden of proving that Mr White had testamentary capacity at the relevant times. The evidence, including that of the solicitor, social worker, and expert Dr McWilliam, established that Mr White understood the nature and effect of the will, the extent of his property, and the claims upon him, and was not subject to a disorder of mind influencing his decisions. The will was rational, fair, and just, and Mr White knew and approved its contents. The errors in the solicitor's pro forma did not indicate lack of capacity. The will is valid and should be propounded.

Court Disposition

Will propounded; claim dismissed.

Orders

  • The will of Mr Raymond Ian White dated 4 June 2010 is valid and to be admitted to probate.
  • The estate is not to be distributed under intestacy.