This blog is co-authored by Ameliah McLaren-Parker and Benthannie Byrne

Neate v Heselden 2024 - This case concerns the estate of the late Ray Watts. The claimant in this matter was Beverley Neate, Ray’s stepdaughter. Susan Pope (“Susan) was Ray’s cleaner and good friend.

Facts

In 2007 Ray made a will leaving his estate to his three biological children and three stepchildren from his second marriage in equal shares. However, in 2019 he made a new will leaving £15,000 to each of his biological children and Beverley, with the remainder of his estate going to Susan. The estate at this time was valued at around £250,000. In 2020 Ray executed a codicil reducing Beverley’s share to £1.

Ray passed away in 2021 and his estate was valued at £250,000.

On discovering that she was due to inherit just £1 from Roy’s estate Beverley claimed that the 2020 codicil and the 2019 will was invalid on the grounds that Ray did not know and approve of the contents of the will. She claimed that it would have been out of character for Ray to be spiteful so as to only leave her the sum of £1 in his will, when she had a good relationship with him.

However, Susan stated that the reason Ray reduced Beverley’s share of his estate to £1 was due to her ‘disrespectful behaviour’ towards him which included her changing the locks on his property whilst he was in hospital.

Susan came into Ray’s life as his cleaner however over time she took on more responsibilities and ended up caring for him. Susan became close with Ray and they shared an interest in stamp collecting and she would often attend fairs with him.

In addition to her £200,000 share of Ray’s estate, Susan received his stamp collection for £1 which Beverley claimed was worth £200,000; however Susan disputed this and believed it to be worth no more than £40,000. An attendance note describing the lawyer's visit to the hospital said that Susan 'did not wish to accept these as a gift', but that Ray said he would 'sell everything to her for the price of £1'.

Challenging a will on the grounds of ‘knowledge and approval’

If it can be demonstrated that a testator did not know, understand, or approve of the contents of their will, claimants can bring a claim on the basis that the deceased did not know and approve of the contents of a will. If a court accepts that a deceased did not know and approve of the contents of their will, then the will will be overturned.

This is most common when a testator has a physical or communicative impairment; for example, if they are blind, hard of hearing or deaf, or illiterate.

The correct approach to considering knowledge and approval is to ask a single question, namely, had the testator understood: -

(a) what was in the Will when they signed it; and

(b) what its effect would be: Gill v Woodall [2010] EWCA Civ 1430

The question then is whether the court is satisfied that the contents truly represent the testator’s testamentary intentions: Fuller v Strum [2001] EWCA Civ 1879.

Who does the burden fall on?

The burden rests on the party seeking to prove that the will is valid. They must establish that the testator knew and approved of its contents at the time in which it was executed.

If you require advice on bringing or defending a claim to the validity of a will please reach out to our expert Contentious Probate team who will be happy to advise you.