Asbestosis - Mesothelioma
Building disputes
Compensation claims
Contract advice
Conveyancing
Conveyancing (shared ownership First Steps London)
Conveyancing (shared ownership outside London)
Debt recovery
Discrimination
Dismissal law
Education issues
Employment
Harassment & Privacy
Injury claims
Insurance
Libel
Litigation
Litigation (property)
Medical negligence
Negligence (general)
Planning
Probate & inheritance (contested)
Probate administration
Professional negligence
Redundancy
Unfair dismissal
Various third party links
Approach to costs
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. always aim to approach legal work in a financially-disciplined way. We offer competitive rates. Our charging approach is both transparent and geared to the options open to our clients. Our solicitors generally charge by reference to time spent but we can often agree fixed fees for specific work or in some cases risk-adjusted funding structures.

Send us a summary of your circumstances and objectives for a quick response.
The golden rule survives

1.    A recent case heard by Mr Justice Briggs in the Chancery Division served as a clear reminder that compliance with the Golden Rule remains an essential step in the avoidance or limitation of probate disputes.

2.    The substance of the Golden Rule is that where a solicitor is instructed to prepare a will for an aged testator or for one who has been seriously ill, he should arrange for a medical practitioner to satisfy himself as to the capacity and understanding of the testator and to make a contemporaneous record of his examination and findings.

3.    In Key v Key [2010] EWHC 408 (Ch) instructions were accepted from an 89 year old testator (D) whose wife of 65 years had been dead for no more than a week.  Neither was there as assessment of the testator’s capacity nor a contemporaneous attendance note of the meeting with the testator:

4.    The result after hearing expert and lay evidence was that the Court concluded that the testator lacked testamentary capacity and the will was therefore invalid.

5.    The testator died in July 2008 at the age of 90.  His wife had died about eighteen months previously in November 2006.  They had been married for 65 years and were survived by four children; two sons and two daughters.  The sons had worked with their father and by 2006 had taken over the running of the family farming business.  One daughter lived locally to her father and the other lived in the USA.

6.    A week after the testator’s wife’s death, his solicitor attended the family home in order to take instructions on a new will.  One of the testator’s daughters was present throughout this meeting.  Two days later the same daughter took her father to the solicitor’s office to execute the new will.  Under D’s 2006 will the majority of his estate was divided between his two daughters.

7.    The sons challenged the validity of the 2006 will on the basis that D did not have testamentary capacity and that he did not know and approve the contents of the will.  The brothers’ challenge was successful on the first ground and therefore the Court did not need to consider the second ground.  However it had been argued by both parties and therefore the Court held that it would have found against the will on this ground.

8.    The Court found that the death of D’s wife so shortly before the execution of the will could impact D’s testamentary capacity, and reminded practitioners that the “Golden Rule” is very much alive and well.  When a will is drawn for an aged testator or one who has been seriously ill, it should be witnessed or approved by a medical practitioner, who ought to record his examination of the testator and his findings.

9.    This decision does not chart new ground on the issue of testamentary capacity, but serves as a useful reminder of well-established principles.  The leading case on this subject continues to be Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5QB 549 in which it was held that the Court must be satisfied that the testator must (1) understand the nature of his act; (2) understand the extent of property of which he is disposing; (3) comprehend and appreciate the claims to which he ought to give effect; and (4) not be subject to any disorder of mind as shall “poison his affections, pervert his sense of right, or prevent his natural faculties”.

“9 Gough Square News”: November 2010



Humphreys & Co., solicitors Bristol

Accessibility
We take instructions from UK & international clients. Our independent lawyers are available by email, telephone & fax. With central Bristol offices we are just 90 minutes from London by road or rail and 15 minutes from Bristol International Airport. We can travel to meetings if required.

Independent approach
We are an independent professional law firm here, not a legal factory turning out mass-produced products. In our experience, determined case-handling is more likely to produce effective results.

Turnaround time
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. look to input not only careful legal work and precision but also the determination to keep matters moving. They aim to work in clients' real interests with energy and pragmatism.

Communication skills
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. always try to open up the legal process by giving advice and explaining options to clients in a concise and straightforward way, identifying clear courses of action whatever the technical or legal complexities of the subject.
Solicitors authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority of England & Wales under no.62944
Change to our Commercial Work section or go to our Home Page lawyers@humphreys.co.uk © copyright Humphreys & Co. Solicitors