Goss-Custard & Anor v Templeman & Ors

Testamentary capacity is a question of capacity to understand and evaluate, not a test of perfect memory. A testator need not remember previous wills, the reasons for earlier dispositions, or every fact concerning potential beneficiaries, provided that the testator can obtain and understand relevant information and decide between competing claims. A mistaken belief caused by forgetfulness does not normally amount to an insane delusion. Capacity is negatived only where a disorder of the mind produces a fixed belief that poisons the testator’s affections, perverts the sense of right, or prevents the exercise of natural faculties. A rational will prepared and executed with the assistance of an experienced solicitor should be set aside only on clear evidence of incapacity.

The claimants sought probate in solemn form of Lord Templeman’s 2008 will. The first and second defendants challenged its validity on the ground that Lord Templeman lacked testamentary capacity when he executed it.

It was accepted that he understood the nature and effect of making a will, the extent of his property, and its contents. The dispute concerned his short-term episodic memory, his knowledge of his 2001 will and 2004 codicil, and his decision to leave Mellowstone to his late wife’s stepdaughters rather than making the earlier provision for his grandchildren and other beneficiaries.

The central issue was whether Lord Templeman could comprehend and appreciate the competing claims on his estate, or whether his decision was produced by an illusory belief or delusion.

1. Applicable test. The court applied the four requirements in Banks v Goodfellow (1869) LR 5 QB 549: understanding the nature and effect of the act, the extent of the property, the claims to which effect should be given, and the absence of a disorder of mind or insane delusion influencing the disposition. The modern formulation in Burns v Burns was treated as equivalent, not as a different test.
2. Memory and capacity. Following Simon v Byford and Hoff v Atherton, capacity depends on the ability to understand and comprehend, rather than actual recollection. A testator need not remember the terms or reasons for a previous will, provided that the testator could access and understand the relevant information if reminded.
3. Competing claims. Comprehending and appreciating claims does not require knowledge of every gift previously made or the beneficiaries’ precise financial circumstances. The testator must have the capacity to inform himself if desired and to weigh competing claims. The court rejected the suggestion that a testator must make a legally or financially correct assessment of relative entitlement.
4. Delusion. A mere mistake or failure of memory is insufficient. The relevant delusion must be fixed and incapable of rational correction, of the kind identified in Re Belliss (Polson v Parrott). On the evidence, Lord Templeman’s belief that Mellowstone should return to Sheila’s family was an emotional and rationally intelligible choice, not a delusion.
5. Application and result. Lord Templeman’s episodic memory was impaired, but his working memory, intellect and ability to understand documents and deliberate on his affairs remained substantially intact. He was probably aware of his earlier testamentary arrangements and, in any event, had capacity even if he had forgotten some of their terms or reasons. The 2008 will was admitted to probate in solemn form.

First-instance decision. No earlier appellate decision is stated in the judgment.