How does the court decide if a Will is valid?
In the recent case of Oliver v Oliver, His Honourable Judge Paul Matthews explained how judges make their decision.
This was a probate claim, so the judge was deciding whether a Will was invalid. In Oliver, the judge decided the Will was invalid as the deceased lacked mental capacity, and there was undue influence.
The judge explained how they make decisions by considering the witnesses’ evidence, examining the documentary evidence, and listening to the legal arguments.
Who has to prove the Will is valid?
The responsibility to prove whether a Will is valid is known as the burden of proof. The burden of proof varies depending on the type of claim.
The starting point is that a person is presumed to have had capacity if the Will was executed correctly and appears rational. Therefore, when challenging the validity of a Will due to mental capacity, the burden of proof is on the person contesting a Will.
However, if they can persuade the court there is “real doubt” the deceased lacked capacity, the presumption of capacity falls away. It is then for the person who claims the deceased did have capacity to prove the deceased had capacity to make a Will.
For undue influence, the person who makes the allegation has the burden to prove it.
What level of proof is required?
The level of proof required to persuade the court something happened is called the “standard of proof”.
Many people are familiar with the criminal standard of proof: beyond reasonable doubt.
In probate claims, the standard of proof is lower. The standard is whether something happened “on the balance of probabilities”.
So, if something is more likely to have happened than not. If there is less than a 50% chance something happened, the judge will say it did not happen.
Another point to note is that the more serious the allegation, the more convincing the evidence must be to persuade the court that a thing is more likely than not to have happened. This applies to allegations of undue influence and fraud.
Role of Judges in probate disputes
HHJ Matthews explained the role of a judge: they are not investigators nor detectives. Judges consider the evidence and arguments put to them by the parties.
It is the parties’ responsibility to present the evidence and make legal arguments to convince the judge to decide one way or another.
Problems with witness evidence
HHJ Matthews explained that judges prefer to rely on documents as they are more objective than witnesses who may have faulty memory. This is particularly true when events occurred several years ago, and memories have faded over time.
He went onto explain how judges do not possess supernatural powers to know when someone is mistaken, or not telling the truth. Judges listen to witnesses being questioned, which helps them decide whether a witness is telling the truth, trying to tell the truth but is mistaken, or is deliberately lying.
Reasons for court’s decision
Finally, a judge must explain the reason for their decision. This is why they provide a judgment.
In the judgement, judges do not have to address every single argument the parties made, or every single piece of evidence presented to the court. Also, the judgment does not have to explain every single reason for the decision.
Instead, the judgement must address the points which matter the most and enable the parties to see how and why the judge reached the decision given.
If you wish to discuss whether a Will can be disputed, please contact one of the specialists in Birketts’ Private Wealth Disputes Team.
