Carr & Ors v Beaven & Ors, Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, October 29, 2008, [2008] EWHC 2582 (Ch)

Reporting Judge: [2008] EWHC 2582 (Ch)

President: Carr & Ors v Beaven & Ors

Linked as:

Extract

Carr & Ors v Beaven & Ors, Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, October 29, 2008, [2008] EWHC 2582 (Ch)

Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWHC 2582 (Ch)

Case No: HC07C01471

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 29th October 2008

Before:

THE HON MR JUSTICE FLOYD

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

IN THE ESTATE OF EDWIN JOHN WATSON (PROBATE)

Between:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Peter John (instructed by Howard Pollok & Webb) for the Claimants

Mr Michael Waterworth (instructed by Mills & Reeve) for the Defendants

Hearing dates: 14th to 17th October 2008

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JudgmentMr Justice Floyd :

1. Edwin John Watson, known as John Watson, died on 11th April 2006. This case concerns the validity of his last will dated 17th November 2000.

2. The claimants are the executors of John Watson's will by virtue of the will of 17th November 2000 and a subsequent codicil dated 2004. The second claimant, Margaret (Margot) Watson is the widow of John Watson and was his second wife. John and Margot Watson were married in October 1997, but they had been together since 1971 following the break-up of John Watson's first marriage. The claimants seek a grant of probate in respect of the November 2000 will.

3. The first four defendants (whom I shall refer to as Catherine, Marilyn, Richard and Janet) are the children of John Watson by his first marriage. The fifth defendant is John Watson's grandson and Marilyn's son. The defendants' sole ground for contesting the November 2000 will is that they contend that John Watson lacked testamentary capacity when he made it. They contend that the same applies to a previous will he made on the 14th March 2000. By their counterclaim they contend that I should pronounce in favour of a yet earlier will dated 5th January 1998.

4. By consent, and before the trial, the fifth defendant withdrew from the claim on agreed terms.

5. This is, in many ways, an unfortunate dispute. It is true that the 1998 will did make provision for John Watson's four children. The provision is in the form of specific, and modest sums totalling £50,000. This relatively small provision for the children was removed by the 200...

See the full content of this document