Edkins v Hopkins & ors [2016] EWHC 2542 (Ch)

WTLR Issue: January/February 2017 #166

GARY RAYMOND EDKINS

V

1. DOROTHY JANE HOPKINS

2. RICHARD PHILLIP HOPKINS

3. ALISTAIR HOPKINS

4. COLIN STEVEN HOPKINS

Analysis

The claimant was a friend and business colleague of Philip Hopkins, and the executor and main beneficiary under Mr Hopkins’ will dated 6 June 2014. The will draftsman, a partner in a law firm, attended Mr Hopkins at his home with two members of the firm’s staff who witnessed his signature. During the execution of the will, she noticed that Mr Hopkins was unwell and later that day he was readmitted into hospital. He died ten days later on 19 August 2014, having been diagnosed with unspecified alcoholic liver damage.

The claimant brought a claim to prove the validity of the 2014 will in solemn form. The defendants, namely the deceased’s wife and his three sons from a previous marriage, challenged the will on the grounds of testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and approval and undue influence.

Held:

  1. 1) The deceased had sufficient testamentary capacity when he gave instructions for his will and on the date of execution. The evidence of the experienced will draftsman, who had kept a detailed attendance note, was that the deceased understood the nature of his act and its effects, the extent of his property and the nature of the claims upon him (Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 11 EQ 472 applied). Her evidence was consistent with the GP’s notes from the day the will was executed.
  2. 2) Having regard to the character, state of mind and wishes of the deceased, the deceased knew and approved of the contents of his will (Gill v RSPCA [2010] EWCA Civ 1430 applied). Likewise, under the traditional two-part test of knowledge and approval, while the deceased’s poor health, confusion and memory lapses may excite suspicion, nonetheless the court was satisfied that the deceased knew and approved of the 2014 will.
  3. 3) The deceased was a free agent in respect of his will. Although the deceased was physically and mentally vulnerable and the claimant had encouraged the deceased, it was a step too far to say that the deceased’s free volition had been overpowered by the claimant, by a ‘drip drip’ approach or otherwise. It was relevant that the deceased had a long-standing desire that his business would continue after his death, and that the claimant represented the best prospect for fulfilling this wish.
JUDGMENT HHJ JARMAN QC: [1] Around midday on 6 June 2014 Philip Hopkins executed his last will (the 2014 will) in the presence of a solicitor Christine Preece who had drawn it up. Miss Preece is and was a partner in the firm of Milwyn Jenkins Solicitors, the other partner being Nicholas Jones. She attended …

Continue reading "Edkins v Hopkins & ors [2016] EWHC 2542 (Ch)"

This content is only available to members.

Counsel Details

Mr Glenn Willetts (Fountain Court, Steelhouse Lane, Birmingham B4 6DR, tel 0845 210 5555, e-mail info@no5.com), instructed by FBC Manby Bowdler LLP (George House, St John’s Square, Wolverhampton WV2 4BZ, tel 01902 578000, e-mail info@fbcmb.co.uk) for the claimant.

Mr Gareth Jones (Civitas Law, Global Reach, Celtic Gateway, Cardiff Bay, Cardiff CF11 0SN, tel 0845 0713 007, e-mail clerks@civitaslaw.com), instructed by Robert Hanratty & Co (The Eagles, Shortbridge Street, Newtown, Powys SY16 2LW, tel 01686 626 239, e-mail enquiries@hanrattylaw.com) for the first defendant.

Mr Rhys Evans (30 Park Place, Cardiff CF10 3BS, tel 029 2039 8421, e-mail clerks@30parkplace.co.uk), instructed by Richard George & Jenkins Solicitors (Old Bank Chambers, High Street, Newtown SY16 2NT, tel 01686 626210) for the second, third and fourth defendants.

Cases Referenced

Cases in bold have further reading - click to view related articles.