The claimant challenged the validity of the will, saying that it had not been validly attested, the two witnesses not being present at the same time despite the attestation clause saying they had been.
Held: The challenge succeeded. Recognising that the law would require the clearest of evidence to rebut the presumption that a will apparently valid had not been properly attested. Even so, that hurdle had been cleared in this case.
Mark Cawson QC
[2012] WTLR 1, [2011] EWHC 2907 (Ch), [2012] WTLR 1
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Wright v Rogers 1869
The survivor of the attesting witnesses of a will, which was signed by the testator and the witnesses at the foot of an attestation clause, gave evidence a year later that the will was not signed by him in the presence of the testator.
Held: . .
Cited – Wright v Sanderson 1884
The testator had written a holograph codicil to his will and included an attestation clause. He asked two witnesses to ‘sign this paper’ which they did. Their evidence, given 4 to 5 years later, was that they did not see the attestation clause nor . .
Cited – Couwenbergh v Valkova CA 28-Jan-2005
The will was challenged as to its due execution. Statements had been produced that the two witnesses had not been present when the will was signed, but those witnesses now said that they and not signed the statements.
Held: The evidence met . .
Cited – Channon and Another v Perkins (A Firm) CA 1-Dec-2005
A will was challenged by the family. The witnesses had said that they did not remember witnessing the deceased sign the will, and would have done. The principle beneficiary appealed refusal of admission to probate of the will.
Held: Neuberger . .
Cited – Sherrington and Another v Sherrington CA 29-Dec-2006
The deceased had after remarriage made a will which excluded from benefit entirely his first wife and children by her. Claims under the 1975 Act were put to one side while the court decided on the validity of the will, but then dismissed. The court . .
Cited – Kentfield v Wright ChD 1-Jul-2010
The claimant disputed her mother’s will which left everything to her brother, challenging its execution. She said that the second witness had not been present when the will was signed.
Held: The will stood. Where a will appeared to be properly . .
Cited – Couwenbergh v Valkova ChD 16-Oct-2008
Challenge to admission of will to probate.
Held: The presumption of due attestation of a will had not been rebutted. . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Singh and Others v Ahluwalia CA 11-Dec-2012
The will on its face was validly executed but evidence had established that one witness had not been present. The judge had found the evidence to be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption that the will had been validly executed. Permission to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Wills and Probate
Leading Case
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.459699
