**IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE**
**CHANCERY DIVISION**
**ANYTOWN DISTRICT PROBATE REGISTRY**
**B E T W E E N:**
**SHANNON**
**Claimant**
**- and -**
**MARGARET**
**Defendant**
**____________________________________**
**SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT**
**____________________________________**
1. This Skeleton Argument is submitted on behalf of the Claimant, Shannon. The Claimant seeks an order pronouncing for the force and validity of the will of her mother, Maureen Davies (‘the Deceased’), dated April 2018 (‘the 2018 Will’), and a declaration that the purported will dated May 2024 (‘the 2024 Will’) is invalid.
The 2024 Will is Invalid Due to Lack of Testamentary Capacity
2. It is the Claimant’s primary submission that the 2024 Will is invalid because the Deceased lacked the requisite testamentary capacity at the time of its execution. For a will to be valid, the testator must be of sound mind, memory, and understanding. The classic test for capacity was established in *Banks v Goodfellow* (1870) LR 5 QB 549. This requires the testator to understand the nature of making a will, the extent of their property, and the claims of those who might expect to benefit. Furthermore, the testator must not be suffering from any ‘disorder of the mind’ that would poison her affections or pervert her sense of right.
3. At the time of making the 2024 Will, the Deceased was suffering from severe depression following the death of her husband, Thomas, in May 2023. Her overwhelming grief had become progressively worse, and she had isolated herself from friends and family. The Claimant possesses handwritten letters from the Deceased which describe her unbearable sadness. It is submitted that this severe depression amounted to a disorder of the mind which affected her dispositions, leading her to create a will that departed significantly from her previously expressed intentions in the 2018 Will.
4. Furthermore, the 2024 Will made no provision for the Deceased’s largest asset, her pension fund valued at £500,000. This omission suggests that the Deceased did not appreciate the extent of the property she was disposing of, failing a key limb of the *Banks v Goodfellow* test. Given these circumstances, the presumption of capacity is rebutted, and the will should be set aside.
The 2018 Will is Valid and Should be Admitted to Probate
5. The 2018 Will, by contrast, was made when the Deceased was in good health and of sound mind. It was executed in full compliance with the formalities required by section 9 of the Wills Act 1837, having been signed by the Deceased in the presence of two witnesses, Doris and Mavis, who also signed.
6. The Defendant, Margaret, has alleged that the Claimant deceived the Deceased into making the 2018 Will. This allegation is entirely without substance. The burden of proof to establish fraud or undue influence rests with the person making the allegation (*Fuller v Strum* [2001] EWCA Civ 1879). The Defendant has conceded that she has no evidence to support this claim, arising from her very limited contact with the Deceased. The Claimant possesses numerous letters from the Deceased expressing sadness over the Defendant’s life choices and their strained relationship, which provides a clear and rational basis for the differential provision made in the 2018 Will.
7. The alteration within the 2018 Will, which removed the provision for Eric and substituted Melanie, is also valid. The Deceased put a line through the name, added the new name, and this change was signed by the Deceased and the two original witnesses. This complies with the requirements for a valid alteration under section 21 of the Wills Act 1837.
8. The devise made to the Claimant’s daughter, Sarah, of ‘my holiday home in St Ives’ creates a latent ambiguity, as the Deceased owned two such properties. In such cases, section 21 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 permits the use of extrinsic evidence to assist in the will’s interpretation. The Claimant can provide a photo album filled with pictures of Sarah holidaying with the Deceased in St Ives, Cornwall. This evidence of their shared happy memories associated with the Cornwall property demonstrates that this was the property the Deceased intended to devise to Sarah.
Conclusion
9. For the reasons set out above, the Claimant submits that the 2024 Will is invalid for want of testamentary capacity. Consequently, the 2018 Will was never revoked and remains the Deceased’s last true testament. The court is respectfully requested to pronounce in favour of the 2018 Will.
References
Administration of Justice Act 1982
Wills Act 1837
Cases
*Banks v Goodfellow* (1870) LR 5 QB 549
*Fuller v Strum* [2001] EWCA Civ 1879
