PT-2018-000874 - [2025] EWHC 2796 (Ch)

Fecha: 29-Oct-2025

The testamentary documents

The testamentary documents

14.

Richard executed a large number of documents expressed to be wills during his lifetime. Many of these could not take effect as valid wills because, for example, they were not witnessed by two witnesses. In some cases there is a dispute as to whether an invalid “will” represented Richard’s testamentary intentions at all, with Adam arguing that Richard prepared some of these documents to placate Jennifer, perhaps knowing that they were invalid when executed.

15.

Without in any way pre-judging this debate, I will as a shorthand refer to all of the documents that Richard executed that were expressed to be wills as “Wills” whether or not they could validly take effect as wills. By far the most important of the Wills are the following:

The valid will of 23 June 1995 (the 1995 Will) as that is the Will which Adam says embodies the promises that form the basis of the Proprietary Estoppel Claim, principally the asserted promise that (i) Adam would obtain a long-term tenancy of the Farm after Richard’s death and (ii) would have the right to purchase the entire Farm (as encumbered by that tenancy) for its probate value.

ii)

The invalid Wills of 22 January 2003 and 24 September 2007 (the 2003 Will and the 2007 Will respectively) since Jennifer argues, but Adam disputes, that these show a change in Richard’s testamentary intentions that was communicated to Adam at the time of their execution.

iii)

The valid Will of 12 May 2015 (the May2015 Will) since this is the first valid will that Adam argues fails to give effect to promises made during Richard’s lifetime.

iv)

The valid Will of 25 May 2016 (the May 2016Will) which all parties agree to be valid and, in particular, to have been executed at a time when Richard had testamentary capacity.

The valid Wills of 9 September 2016 and 19 December 2016 (the September 2016 Will and the December 2016 Will respectively) since these are the two Disputed Wills that are the subject of the Probate Claim.

16.

Adam’s legal team prepared a very helpful schedule setting out all Wills that were disclosed and summarising their key terms. In preparing this judgment, I have read all the Wills referred to in that schedule. This, however, is a not a case that centres on the meaning of particular provisions in particular Wills and, where it is necessary to refer to particular terms of Wills, I will do so in the text of the judgment that follows. It is sufficient to note by way of introductory remarks that none of the Wills made after 1995 contains any of the promises summarised in paragraph ‎15.i) which form the basis of the Proprietary Estoppel Claim.