Analysis
Charles Skillett (Mr Skillett) and his wife had four children. Mr Skillett owned a smallholding and, on 7 December 2010, received a market appraisal valuing the smallholding at £50,000. On 19 May 2011, Mr Skillett and his wife made mirror wills which provided, in summary, on the death of the first spouse, for the surviving spouse to take everything absolutely, and on the death of the surviving spouse, for the smallholding to be given to their eldest son, the other three children to receive £50,000 and the residuary estate to be split equally among all four children. Mrs Skillett passed away in June 2017 and Mr Skillett passed away in July 2017. In July 2017, the smallholding was valued at £110,000.
Mr Skillett had developed idiopathic Parkinson’s disease in February 2002; suffered continuing health problems, including hallucinations; had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease in September 2013; and had moved into a nursing home in November 2013 where he remained until his death. In these proceedings, the eldest son asked the court to propound the late Mr Skillett’s 2011 will and Mr and Mrs Skillett’s second son objected on the grounds that his father lacked testamentary capacity in May 2011 or did not know and approve the contents of the 2011 will.
Held:
In respect of testamentary capacity, the testator, Mr Skillett, had testamentary capacity as at 19 May 2011. The solicitor acting in respect of the 2011 will was an experienced solicitor and he believed the testator to have had capacity. Although the solicitor did not follow the golden rule from Re Simpson [1977], which would have been advisable in this case, such rule was not a rule of law. Further, medical records showed that the testator’s hallucinations had reduced at the relevant time and that he had made medical decisions on 11 January 2011 and 3 August 2011. The evidence indicated that the testator had understood the market appraisal in December 2010 and had made a decision to not sell the smallholding at that time to the eldest son. Further, Mrs Skillett had told the other three children about the terms of the 2011 will at the time and no concerns had been raised as to the testator’s capacity then by herself or the other three children. Finally, the single joint expert, on the basis of the medical records, had concluded that the testator had testamentary capacity at the relevant time.
In respect of knowledge and approval, Mr Skillett knew and approved the contents of the 2011 will. The lack of mathematical equality between his children did not undermine a finding of such knowledge and approval, and an oversight or change in circumstances did not invalidate a will. There may have been a number of reasons why the testator did not provide for a situation in which the smallholding increased in value before his death, including oversight or a reward for any contribution by the eldest son to maintaining the land. A judgement on equality and fairness accordingly had a strong subjective element.
JUDGMENT PHILIP MOTT QC: Introduction [1] The Claimant brings these proceedings to ask the court to propound in solemn form the will executed by his late father, Charles Skillett (the Testator), on 19 May 2011. The Defendant, his brother, objects on the grounds that their father lacked testamentary capacity and/or did not know and approve …Continue reading "Skillett v Skillett [2022] WTLR 679"