Jenkins v Evans [2025] EWHC 2438 (Ch)

Executors sought to prove the 2017 Will of Robert Glyn Evans against his daughter Caroline's challenge alleging lack of testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and approval, and undue influence. The High Court pronounced in favour of the 2017 Will, rejecting all grounds of challenge.

Facts

Robert Glyn Evans (the Testator) died on 25 January 2021, aged 93. He had made two wills: the 2006 Will, which appointed his children Nicholas and Caroline as executors and divided the residue between them equally; and the 2017 Will, made when he was 90, which replaced his children as executors with Andrew Jenkins (a solicitor at Wansbroughs) and his partner Jennifer Vooght, introduced pecuniary legacies totalling £23,000 (including £10,000 each to Nicholas’s two sons), and left the residue equally to Nicholas and Caroline.

The change in executorship followed a well-documented breakdown in the relationship between Nicholas and Caroline from around 2013–2014. The Testator discussed the issue with Mr Jenkins across several meetings in February and March 2017 before executing the 2017 Will on 31 March 2017. Caroline lodged a caveat and subsequently counterclaimed, seeking to have the 2017 Will set aside on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and approval, and undue influence, and to uphold the 2006 Will or establish intestacy.

A related dispute concerned the nature of the interest of Sally’s Will Trust (created by the Testator’s late wife’s will) in the family home, Simon’s Hollow. Caroline contended she and Nicholas, as trustees, owned and controlled half of the property; the claimants maintained the Trust held only an equitable charge.

Issues

The court had to determine whether the 2017 Will or the 2006 Will was the last valid will of the Testator. The specific issues were:

• Whether the Testator had testamentary capacity when he executed the 2017 Will;
• Whether he knew and approved its contents;
• Whether the 2017 Will was procured by undue influence;
• Incidentally, the nature of Sally’s Will Trust’s interest in Simon’s Hollow.

Arguments

Claimants

The claimants relied on Mr Jenkins’s contemporaneous attendance notes and correspondence evidencing the Testator’s clear understanding of his estate, his reasons for changing executors, and his choice of legacies. They argued the estate was simple, the 2017 Will was rational on its face, and Dr Osborn (the Testator’s GP) had expressed no doubt about his capacity. They submitted Nicholas had made only a single suggestion to the Testator about appointing an independent executor, falling well short of coercion.

Defendant

Caroline argued that her father lacked testamentary capacity in March 2017, pointing to his age, alleged dizzy spells, mental health issues exacerbated by harassing phone calls from her ex-partner, and the absence of compliance with the ‘golden rule’. She alleged Nicholas had pressured the Testator to change the executorship and that Mr Jenkins had collaborated improperly — including, she claimed, accepting personal bequests of chattels and ‘open-ended’ fees. She relied on Schrader v Schrader and Carapeto v Good for the proposition that undue influence could be inferred from circumstantial evidence.

Judgment

HHJ Russen KC pronounced in favour of the 2017 Will.

Legal framework

The judge applied the four-limb test from Banks v Goodfellow as reaffirmed in Sharp v Adam and Hughes v Pritchard, noting that capacity is ‘issue-specific’ (Hoff v Atherton) and that the estate here was simple and the will straightforward. He observed that non-compliance with the golden rule is not determinative (Key v Key; Burns v Burns). On knowledge and approval, he applied the holistic approach in Gill v Woodall as summarised in Reeves v Drew. On undue influence, he applied the principles in Edwards v Edwards, Cowderoy v Cranfield, and the reformulation in Rea v Rea.

Testamentary capacity

The judge found Mr Jenkins to be an impressive witness whose evidence, supported by detailed attendance notes of meetings on 1 February, 14 March and 31 March 2017, demonstrated the Testator’s understanding of the nature of making a will, the extent of his estate, the claims upon him, and his rational reasons for changing executors. The Testator’s 6CIT scores (4 in December 2016 and 0 in October 2017) and Dr Dyer’s assessment in March 2020 (scoring 10/10 on mental testing) further supported capacity. Dr Osborn’s letter of 20 July 2021 confirmed she had ‘no doubts’ about his capacity at the time. The judge concluded that Mr Jenkins’s evidence carried the weight contemplated by Hughes v Pritchard at [79] notwithstanding non-compliance with the golden rule.

Knowledge and approval

Given capacity was established and the will was duly executed, knowledge and approval were presumed. Although Mr Jenkins had estimated the estate’s value without deducting the equitable charge in favour of Sally’s Will Trust, this overstatement did not raise any serious question over the Testator’s knowledge of his assets and intended beneficiaries.

Undue influence

The judge found no evidence of coercion. Nicholas had raised the change of executorship only once, by way of suggestion, which did not amount even to persuasion, let alone coercion. Any anxiety the Testator displayed more likely reflected his concern about Caroline’s reaction than reluctance to make the change. The 2017 Will did not significantly alter Caroline’s financial position — only £11,500 was at stake — undermining the undue influence case. The judge rejected as ‘entirely baseless’ Caroline’s suggestions that Mr Jenkins acted improperly, noting that section 15 of the Wills Act 1837 prevented him from taking any benefit as an attesting witness.

Sally’s Will Trust

The judge found that the Trust’s interest in Simon’s Hollow took the form of an equitable charge, not a beneficial half-share, as evidenced by the trustees’ minutes from 2014 onwards referring to ‘an equitable charge dated 17 June 2005 and varied by a Deed of Rectification dated 13 October 2006’.

Implications

The decision reinforces several established propositions in contentious probate. First, it confirms that non-compliance with the golden rule does not invalidate a will where contemporaneous evidence from an experienced will draftsman, supported by medical records, establishes capacity — echoing Hughes v Pritchard. Second, it illustrates the high evidential threshold for undue influence in testamentary cases, particularly where the impugned change has modest financial consequences for the challenger. Third, it emphasises the considerable evidential weight attached to careful attendance notes prepared by an experienced solicitor who has met the testator and assessed capacity.

For practitioners, the judgment underscores the importance of detailed, contemporaneous attendance notes recording the testator’s understanding of the nature of the will, the extent of the estate, and the rationale for any changes — particularly where family relationships are fractured. It also demonstrates judicial reluctance to be drawn into the personal rights and wrongs of family disputes where they are not directly relevant to the validity issue.

The case is fact-specific and limited to the validity of the 2017 Will; it did not resolve Caroline’s other claims (including her asserted lifetime occupancy right at Simon’s Hollow or care cost reimbursement), which were reserved for further directions. The judge also noted that nothing in the evidence suggested Mr Jenkins was unsuitable to act as executor, though that question was not formally before the court.

Verdict: The claim succeeded. The court pronounced in favour of the 2017 Will in solemn form and directed that the defendant’s caveat shall cease to have effect. The counterclaim challenging the validity of the 2017 Will was dismissed.

Source: Jenkins v Evans [2025] EWHC 2438 (Ch)