header-logo header-logo

27 November 2024
Issue: 8096 / Categories: Legal News , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

A nod was enough to revoke the will

A dying woman successfully completed a deathbed revocation of her will after nodding at her solicitor to ask for her help in tearing up the document. 

Solicitor Haffwen Webb’s note of the meeting read: ‘Carry was able to tear around three quarters of the way through and then HW [Haffwen Webb] helped her tear up the rest of it.’

The court heard oral evidence that Webb, seeing her client struggling, asked if she would like help to finish tearing the five-page document. The client, looking directly at Webb, nodded. Webb then helped her complete the task by placing her own hands on her client’s hands.

Under s 20, Wills Act 1837, a will can be revoked by ‘the burning, tearing, or otherwise destroying the same by the testator, or by some person in his presence and by his direction…’.

Consequently, 92-year-old Carry Keats’ £800,000 estate passed by intestacy to her younger sister, Josephine Oakley, rather than five cousins who were the beneficiaries of the will. However, the cousins challenged the revocation on the basis of mental capacity and the assistance to rip up the will.

Delivering his judgment, in Crew and another v Oakley and others [2024] EWHC 2847 (Ch), Deputy Master Linwood said: ‘Behind this simple act of tearing is enmity in the wider family involving allegations of undue influence, greed and bullying, with an unseemly scrabble for the assets of the deceased in the last couple of years of her life and after her death.’

Deputy Master Linwood held Keats, though frail, was in a ‘lucid interval’ and so possessed the necessary mental capacity at the time of revocation. He found the solicitor’s attendance note, despite not recording the client’s nod, was ‘convincing’ and satisfied the Banks v Goodfellow test of the client intending to destroy the will and understanding the consequences of doing so.
Issue: 8096 / Categories: Legal News , Wills & Probate
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll