Kentfield v Wright

A will that is regular on its face and contains an attestation clause attracts a strong presumption of due execution. The presumption is not rebutted merely by uncertain recollection or evidence that does not amount to the strongest evidence. The court must assess the evidence in the round, including the reliability of witnesses and the circumstances of execution. Where the will was signed or acknowledged in the presence of both witnesses, and the witnesses then signed in the required manner, the formal requirements of section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 are satisfied.

Gladys Lilian Wright died leaving a will dated 14 July 1999 which gave her estate to her son, Peter Charles Wright. Her daughter, Maureen Kentfield, sought revocation of the grant of probate and challenged the will’s validity.

It was accepted that the deceased had testamentary capacity, knew and approved the will, and acted without undue influence. The sole issue was whether the will complied with section 9(c) of the Wills Act 1837, as amended by section 17 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982. The central factual question was whether both witnesses were present together when the deceased signed or acknowledged her signature and whether they signed as witnesses on the same occasion.

1. The claim was dismissed. The will was duly and properly executed, and the grant of probate was not revoked.

2. Following the approach in Sherrington v Sherrington [2005] EWCA Civ 326, a will which is regular on its face and contains an attestation clause carries a strong presumption of due execution. The strongest evidence is required to rebut that presumption. The principle applies where the challenge concerns the presence of the witnesses together as well as attestation.

3. The court assessed the evidence as a whole. Mrs Widdowfield’s recollection was unreliable and her evidence that she signed alone in the kitchen was not accepted. Mrs Kentfield’s account was regarded substantially as reconstruction and was not sufficiently strong to displace the presumption.

4. The evidence of Mr Wright and Mrs Durban was preferred. The deceased was careful and precise, the wills appeared to have been written and executed on different dates, and the attestation clause was consistent with proper execution. The court found that both witnesses were present when the deceased wrote and signed the will and that they signed it at the same time in the presence of the deceased and each other.

5. Accordingly, the statutory requirements were met: the deceased signed in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time, and each witness attested and signed in the presence of the deceased.