Lockdown Will voided after signatories did not have line of sight

In a contested probate case a preliminary‑issue probate hearing has voided a Will drafted during the COVID-19 pandemic because the proper signing procedures were not followed. District Judge Chloë Phillips the Will, signed during COVID, was invalid for want of due execution after finding the testatrix neither signed nor acknowledged her signature in the simultaneous presence of two witnesses.

The court was presented with the case of Peter Coady v Gerard Coady, examining the validity of a Will drafted in April 2020 by Kathleen Bernadette Coady. The 2020 Will appointed her son Gerard sole executor and residuary beneficiary, displacing a Will from March 2017 under which Peter (the claimant) was executor and residuary beneficiary with specific legacies to other family members. Kathleen Coady died in November 2022 and a grant was issued in December 2022 on the 2020 will. Bringing the case, Peter Coday argued the Will was not properly signed and witnessed.

The 2020 Will was drafted during the first COVID-19 lockdown, prepared by solicitors to be signed at home. This 2020 will appointed her son Gerard as sole executor and residuary beneficiary. The key factual dispute concerned what happened during the execution of the 2020 will. David Meeson, one of the two attesting witnesses, said he and his mother Edna were asked by Gerard to witness the will as an emergency measure. They entered the back garden, where a table had been set up about 10 to 12 feet from the open back door. Kathleen was seated inside at a dining table, six to eight feet from the door. David described her as very ill and half asleep, making no acknowledgment of their presence. He stated that he did not see her sign the will and that when he and Edna signed, Kathleen could not see them. The entire process lasted only two or three minutes he said.

His mother, Edna Meeson gave similar evidence. recalling Kathleen looking frail and silent, ‘like a zombie,’ and said there was no conversation or acknowledgment from her. The signing was ‘rushed’ and some papers were folded or partially covered. It was believed a solicitor would later check the will.

Gerard’s account however was different, claiming he followed the solicitor’s instructions precisely: reading out the execution sheet and the entire will, confirming Kathleen’s understanding, and had her first sign in the witnesses’ view, before passing the will outside for their signatures, all in mutual sight and without any documents being folded. He said Kathleen greeted and thanked the witnesses and denied promising that a solicitor would later validate the will. A typed document produced in court purported to confirm that Kathleen had thanked them and understood the process was rejected after both the Meeson’s disputed it content, and the court found it suspicious and unreliable. Indeed a part of the proceedings required the Will be read in full and timed so as to be clear about the timeframes under which the Will was signed with the Meeson’s claiming to have been at the property for less than five minutes… the Will took nearly six to read out.

In coming to its decision, the court acknowledged the temporary extension to legislation which allowed for video conference for wills made but stressed the core simultaneous‑presence and acknowledgment requirements still applied. On the evidence, the testatrix did not sign or acknowledge her signature in the presence of both witnesses, and when the witnesses signed, she could not see them. The 2020 will was therefore invalid for non‑compliance with section 9(1)(c).

The case highlighted the pitfalls of Wills signed during COVID reiterating the importance of line of sight, whether in person or on video for the duration of the extension of the legislation and is a sharp reminder to private client lawyers that section 9 formalities offer little flexibility—even in lockdown conditions.