Tyrrell v Painton: CA 1894

The rule throwing upon the party propounding a will the burden of showing that it expresses the true will of the deceased is not confined to cases where the will is prepared by a person taking a benefit under it. After reference to Barry v Butlin and the discussion of circumstances which might excite the court’s suspicion, Lindley LJ said: ‘[W]herever such circumstances exist, and whatever their nature may be, it is for those who propound the will to remove such suspicion, and to prove affirmatively that the testator knew and approved of the contents of the document, and it is only where this is done that the onus is thrown on those who oppose the will to prove fraud or undue influence, or whatever else they rely on to displace the case made for proving the will.’


Lindley LJ


[1894] 1 P 151


CitedBarry v Butlin PC 8-Dec-1838
The testator, who had one son, bequeathed legacies to Percy, his attorney, one Butlin, to whom he also bequeathed the residue of his estate, and Whitehead, his butler. The will was upheld by the judge in the Prerogative Court and the son appealed. . .

Cited by:

CitedGill v Woodall and Others ChD 5-Oct-2009
The claimant challenged her late mother’s will which had left the entire estate to a charity. She asserted lack of knowledge and approval and coercion, and also an estoppel. The will included a note explaining that no gift had been made because she . .
CitedGill v Woodall and Others CA 14-Dec-2010
The court considered the authorities as to the capacity to make a will, and gave detailed guidance.
Held: As a matter of common sense and authority, the fact that a will has been properly executed, after being prepared by a solicitor and read . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.450176