GARETH HUGHES v CARYS PRITCHARD

Testamentary capacity concerns a testator’s ability to understand the relevant matters, not the fairness of the dispositions made or the testator’s ability to recall a former will without assistance. A testator need not justify a change in testamentary intention.

The evidence of an experienced drafting solicitor and a medical practitioner who assessed the testator is of considerable importance, but neither is conclusive. The so-called golden rule is a rule of prudent practice, not a legal test. Discussing a previous will and the reasons for every change may be helpful, but is not a precondition to accepting such evidence.

Capacity remains transaction-specific, but a will’s complexity must be assessed as a whole and by reference to the Banks v Goodfellow test.

Gareth Hughes v Carys Pritchard concerned the validity of Evan Hughes’s will of 7 July 2016. The will left the agricultural land known as Yr Efail to Gareth, whereas earlier wills had left farmland to Gareth’s late brother, Elfed.

The High Court held that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity, admitted the 2005 will to probate, and upheld in principle a proprietary-estoppel claim concerning the farmland: [2021] EWHC 1580 (Ch). It rejected challenges based on want of knowledge and approval and undue influence.

Gareth appealed against the capacity finding. Gwen Hughes and Stephen Hughes sought to uphold the proprietary-estoppel aspect if the 2016 will was valid. The central issues were the correct legal test for capacity, the weight due to the solicitor’s and GP’s evidence, and whether the estoppel issues could be finally determined on the existing findings.

1. The appeal on testamentary capacity was allowed. The judge’s conclusion that the 2016 will was invalid for lack of capacity was not open to him once proper weight was given to the contemporaneous evidence of the drafting solicitor, Ms Roberts, and the GP, Dr Pritchard.

2. The governing test remained that in Banks v Goodfellow. The relevant questions were whether the testator could understand the act and effect of making the will, the extent of the property disposed of, and the claims on his bounty. Capacity concerned the potential to understand. It did not require recall of an earlier will or reasons for it, provided the testator could access and understand the information if reminded.

3. The judge erred by treating the change in the disposition of Yr Efail, and the perceived fairness of that change, as decisive. A testator is free to make dispositions that appear unkind, unfair or capricious. He need not explain or justify them. The 2016 will was rational and explicable as a whole, and was no more complex than the 2005 will in any material sense.

4. Ms Roberts’s evidence and Dr Pritchard’s assessment were highly important, though not conclusive. It was prudent, but not legally required, to discuss the prior will or require an explanation for the change concerning Yr Efail. Their failure to do so did not justify materially discounting their evidence. The golden rule is a practice safeguard, not a conclusive rule of law.

5. Permission to advance a new argument under Parker v Felgate was refused because it had not been pleaded or run below. It would have changed the expert and factual evidence at trial.

6. The court upheld the findings that sufficiently clear assurances had been made for proprietary-estoppel purposes. However, the trial judge had not adequately assessed detriment, the benefits of the farming arrangement, unconscionability, or the effect of Elfed’s death on relief. Those issues were remitted to the High Court.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appeal against the finding that the 2016 will was invalid for want of testamentary capacity: [2022] EWCA Civ 386. Remitted the proprietary-estoppel questions of detriment and remedy.
• High Court, Chancery Division: Dismissed the claim to prove the 2016 will in solemn form on the ground of lack of testamentary capacity; admitted the 2005 will to probate; and found a proprietary estoppel in principle: [2021] EWHC 1580 (Ch).