kentfield_wrightChd10
References: [2010] EWHC 1607 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Vos J
Ratio: The claimant disputed her mother’s will which left everything to her brother, challenging its execution. She said that the second witness had not been present when the will was signed.
Held: The will stood. Where a will appeared to be properly executed, the strongest evidence was required to counter the presumption in law of due execution. No sufficient evidence had been brought here.
Statutes: Wills Act 1837 9(c)
This case cites:
- Applied – Sherrington v Sherrington CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 326, Times 24-Mar-05)
The deceased, a solicitor of long standing, was said to have signed his will without having read it, and had two witnesses sign the document without them knowing what they were attesting. He had remarried, and the will was challenged by his . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Ahluwalia v Singh and Others ChD ([2012] WTLR 1, Bailii, [2011] EWHC 2907 (Ch))
The claimant challenged the validity of the will, saying that it had not been validly attested, the two witnesses not being present at the same time despite the attestation clause saying they had been.
Held: The challenge succeeded. . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 20 October 2019
Ref: 420223
The post Kentfield v Wright: ChD 1 Jul 2010 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.