Karen Woolfson v Adrian Woolfson & Ors

Statements of case may be struck out where they disclose no legally recognisable claim, are incoherent, or abuse the court’s process. Summary judgment is appropriate where the opposing party has no real prospect of success and no compelling reason for a trial. In probate litigation, professionally prepared and regularly attested wills attract strong presumptions of knowledge, approval and due execution. A challenge based on testamentary incapacity requires evidence addressing the applicable legal test; depressive illness, a later reference to dementia, or repeated will-making is insufficient without more. Probate undue influence requires proof of coercion or fraud that overbore the testator’s will. Serious allegations of fraud, forgery or breach of trust must be properly particularised.

The claimant challenged a series of wills made by her mother, Sheila Banks, and sought declarations, disclosure and recovery of alleged trust or estate assets. The defendants applied to strike out the claim and supporting documents, or for summary judgment. Adrian Woolfson also sought summary judgment to establish the validity of the Second June 2018 Will and to propound it in solemn form. Other defendants sought strike out or removal as parties. The central issues were whether the claimant had pleaded, or evidenced, any case with a real prospect of success, whether there was any compelling reason for a trial, and whether the evidence established due execution of the Second June 2018 Will.

1. Claim and supporting documents. The claimant had no pleaded case with a real prospect of success and had adduced no evidence showing a realistic prospect of amendment or any compelling reason for a trial. The claims concerning testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval, undue influence, due execution, fraud, forgery, breach of trust, estoppel, restitution and unjust enrichment were either unparticularised or unsupported by evidence. The alleged intergenerational testamentary structure had no articulated legal basis and was inconsistent with the parents’ 1981 financial settlement. The claim documents and response documents were also incoherent and abusive, and likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings.
2. Probate issues. The test for testamentary capacity required the testatrix to understand the nature and effect of the will, the extent of her estate and the claims to which she ought to give effect. The claimant’s evidence did not engage with that test. The medical records contained no relevant diagnosis or evidence of incapacity at the dates of the wills. The allegations of undue influence did not identify coercive conduct capable of overbearing the testatrix’s will. The June 2018 Wills were professionally prepared, reflected detailed instructions and bore regular attestation clauses. Their validity was supported by solicitor and witness evidence, affidavits of due execution and photographic evidence.
3. Orders. The Claim Documents and Response Documents were struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a), and summary judgment was granted to the defendants on the claim. Summary judgment was granted to Adrian on his counterclaim to propound the Second June 2018 Will. The court had no jurisdiction to strike out testamentary documents. Disclosure and ADR orders were refused. The court stated that the other defendants were not proper parties to the probate claim and that Alexander Woolfson and Benjamin Brook were not proper parties to any claim advanced.

The judgment is a first-instance decision. The proceedings followed a probate summons issued by Adrian Woolfson in the Leeds District Probate Registry concerning removal of the claimant’s caveat and the commencement of proceedings challenging the 2018 Will. No earlier judgment is stated.