A television personality has been issued with a £216,000 costs order, £150,000 payable immediately, after failing to convince a court his father lacked testamentary capacity when drafting his 2016 will.
‘Cockney Bard’ Gary Allen, real name Gary Pammen, was disinherited by his father Terrance Pammen in his 2016 will, which only coming to light when his father died in May 2022. He left an estate valued at £451,840, mainly tied up in his house in his east London home.
Despite having five children, Terrance Pammen left the house and all his remaining assets to daughter Tracy and granddaughter Paige (pictured outside court).
The case was heard in Central London County Court, with Gary Pammen claiming his father lacked testamentary capacity at the time of the drafting saying he did not “know and approve” its contents as he was too mentally frail when it was drawn up.
Although Terrance Pammen was diagnosed with dementia in 2020, he displayed no signs of a failing memory until 2017 or 2018, Tracey Pammen’s barrister, Tom Gosling, said. The court was provided with expert evidence from a psychiatrist confirming he was of sound mind.
Gary Pammen said he spoke to his father every day by phone, adding outside court that he loved his father and always got on with him, and that there was no clear reason for him to be disinherited.
He also claimed Tracy “raided” their father’s bank accounts in his final years, an allegation which she and her lawyers dismissed as nonsense.
Defending the will, Tracy and Paige said independent-minded Terrance was “totally sharp” when he drew up the will and had firm views about how he wanted to leave his estate. Terrance Pammen was working at Morrisons supermarket when he made the will, and carried on doing so for up to three years afterwards.
“This entire claim is based upon no more than suspicion borne out of a family disagreement with Tracy…around about the time of his mother’s death,” said the judge.
“This has led Gary to see every piece of evidence as supportive of his case, whereas in fact his belief, which no doubt he strongly and genuinely holds, is based on no more than confirmation bias.”
Finding in favour of Tracy and Paige, the judge said: “It is in my view crystal clear from all of this – on a holistic evaluation of all the factual and expert evidence…that Mr Pammen had testamentary capacity.
“I regret to say that Gary’s case to the contrary, and this entire claim, is based upon no more than suspicion borne out of a family disagreement with Tracy – the details of which I have not been told – around about the time of his mother’s death.
“This has led Gary to see every piece of evidence as supportive of his case, whereas in fact his belief – which no doubt he strongly and genuinely holds – is based on no more than confirmation bias, a willingness to see everything as supportive, rather than objective facts and what is more likely to have been the case.
“Gary is simply unable to accept that his father did not leave him, his sister Jackie or his brother Mark anything, and he now sees everything as confirming that his father did not understand what was going on.
“In fact, the evidence is to the contrary, and is that Mr Pammen’s cognitive problems did not cause any issues until at least a year after the will.
“Part of Gary’s complaint against Tracy and Paige is that there are large unexplained withdrawals from Mr Pammen’s account, particularly after a time when on the medical evidence there had been a dementia diagnosis. Gary said that they had fleeced his late father of tens of thousands of pounds.
“I have decided that I should make no express finding on this other than that the money was not withdrawn by Tracy and/or Paige.
“All I need to say is that I am not persuaded that the withdrawals were made by Tracy, save where Tracy accepted having made some more modest withdrawals for groceries for Mr Pammen.”
Going on to direct Gary to pay his sister and niece’s court costs of £216,013.85, with a £150,000 up front payment, the judge concluded: “I can see no good reason for not ordering that Gary should make a payment on account. It seems to me that a payment on account of £150,000 is reasonable in the circumstances and I will so order.”
Amanda Smallcombe, partner and head of private wealth disputes at Birketts LLP, said the case provided professionals with a “stark reminder” of the significant financial risks involved in challenging the validity of a will without compelling evidence.
“Claims based on lack of testamentary capacity and not knowing or approving the content of a will are inherently fact-specific and require robust medical and contemporaneous evidence to succeed,” she explained.
“Where such claims are unsuccessful, the adverse costs consequences can be devastating.
“Of particular note in this case, is the order for a payment on account of £150,000. Such an order was clearly made on the basis that the court was satisfied that Mr Pammen was likely to be liable for a significant proportion of the other side’s costs, to ensure that they were not kept out of pocket while detailed assessment of costs takes place.
“This case will serve as a powerful deterrent against weak or speculative claims, reinforcing the need for careful, early evaluation of both the merits of the case and the potential costs exposure.
“Mr Pammen represented himself and so did not incur the costs of being legally represented during the trial, at least, but this appears to have been a false economy.
“Had he engaged lawyers specialising in this type of case, he would have been advised there was insufficient evidence to persuade the court that his father’s will was invalid and, if he had followed that advice, would not have continued with the claim and been left paying his sister’s legal costs, the level of which are not unusual.”
Picture courtesy of Champion News
