A mother’s will has been ruled invalid after an appeal after her capacity came into question due to supposed “delusions” she held towards her daughter. The England and Wales High Court (EWHC) ruling, and its subsequent appeal, gives further support to the Banks v Goodfellow test for testamentary capacity, which was used during the trial to establish these delusions, rather than that of the Mental Capacity Act of 2005 (MCA 2005).
The wills created in 2010 and 2013 were that of Jean Clitheroe. Both wills clarified her wishes to leave her entire £400,000 estate to her son, John Clitheroe, leaving her daughter, Susan Bond, with nothing.
Subsequently, Bond challenged the wills after Jean’s death under the argument she suffered from depression following her other daughter’s death and held “insane delusions” about Bond.
The first England and Wales High Court (EWHC) trial in May 2020 agreed with Bond’s assertion and decided the wills were invalid. Therefore, the estate would have to be split equally between the remaining siblings.
However, John Clitheroe appealed, and after failed mediation attempts another hearing was heard after long delays due to Covid.
The son appealed on the grounds that the previous judge, Deputy Master Linwood, applied the wrong approach for determining capacity as he used the test under the Mental Capacity Act of 2005 instead of the test used in Banks v Goodfellow.
Clitheroe also argued the weight given to Bond’s expert’s testimony on their mother’s “delusions” was given unfair credence over his expert’s testimony. He also stated the judge held too low a threshold for finding truth in delusions beliefs as clinicians who treated their mother found her to have capacity.
The failure to uphold the validity of the wills was also appealed.
The appeal was dismissed by Falk J on the matter of the test used to determine the “delusions” in the original trial. It was established that the Banks test was the correct one to use, which meant that Clitheroe was given the burden of proof in showing his mother delusion had not influenced the wills.
Although, the appeal was successful on the grounds that Linwood had given too much precedence to Bond’s expert’s testimony and the full lists of insane delusions accepted “should therefore not be regarded as entirely safe”. Ultimately though, the wills were still declared invalid, and that Jean Clitheroe died intestate and the estate was divided between the brother and sister. (Clitheroe v Bond, EWHC 2203 Ch).
