PT-2022-000261 - [2025] EWHC 2060 (Ch)

Fecha: 20-Ago-2025

Discussion and conclusions

Discussion and conclusions

Testamentary capacity

62.

In this case, the 2015 will is duly executed and appears rational on its face. There is therefore a presumption of capacity. The primary bases on which Ms Karim alleged lack of capacity were the mistake as to Ms West’s name when giving instructions to Damsons; and a reference in the hospital notes to a dementia diagnosis on 15 October 2015.

63.

As to the mistake in Ms West’s name, a single mistake of this type (which may have been made by the person taking instructions) is not enough to show incapacity. As to a reference to dementia, this is also not enough of itself.

64.

On the other hand, Sheila is referred to or treated as having capacity in the documents before the court on numerous occasions:

Date	Source
5 Jun 2014	Richard Nelson att note	“she certainly has capacity”
29 Sep 2014	Hospital records	Patient referral form: list of medical conditions does not include dementia
13 Oct 2014	Hospital records	Consent to cataract operation
5 Nov 2014	Hospital records	Consent to endoscopy
29 Jan 2016	GP records	“she has the capacity”
2 Feb 2016	Hospital records	“Capacity intact”
23 Mar 2016	Hospital records	Dementia screening form: “Dementia diagnosis: No; Delirium diagnosis: Yes”
24 Mar 2016	Hospital records	Letter of authority countersigned by doctor: “I am in sound mind and disposition”
6 Apr 2016	Hospital records	Dementia screening form: “Dementia diagnosis: No; More Forgetful: No” “Alertness: Normal”
Undated	Care home referral sheet	“Miss Carter is mentally alert is able to express her needs”
9 Sep 2016	Hospital records	“Normal cognitive state: intact”
9 Sep 2016	Hospital records	Consent to Do Not Resuscitate

65.

In my judgment, therefore, the evidence shows that, although Sheila had vulnerabilities, she did not lack capacity.