Trial·Breaker SQE1
SQE1 › FLK2 › Wills and the Administration of Estates › Question
SQE1 · FLK2 · Wills and the Administration of Estates

Validity of wills — SQE1 Wills question

A worked single-best-answer question on validity of wills, with why each wrong option is wrong — the way SQE1 traps candidates.

Validity of wills

Edith made a will two years before her death leaving her entire estate to an animal charity and nothing to her only son, Rob. At the time she managed her own finances and could describe her property accurately. Her GP records show that she held a fixed and irrational belief, which no evidence could shake, that Rob had been poisoning her food. She told the person who drafted the will that this was why she was excluding Rob. In fact Rob had cared for her devotedly for many years.

Which of the following is the best advice to Rob on a challenge to the will based on Edith's capacity?

  1. AThe will is valid, because Edith understood that she was making a will and knew the extent of her property.
  2. BThe will is invalid, because a testator who leaves nothing to an only child is presumed to lack testamentary capacity.
  3. CThe will is valid, because testamentary capacity is now assessed only under the functional test in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which Edith satisfied.
  4. DThe will is likely to be invalid, because Edith's delusion about Rob influenced the way she disposed of her estate.
  5. EThe will is likely to be invalid, because old age and physical frailty raise a presumption of incapacity that the charity must rebut.
Show answer and reasoning
D is the best answer. Under Banks v Goodfellow the testator must understand the nature of the act and its effects, the extent of the property, and the claims to which she ought to give effect, and no disorder of the mind may poison her affections or influence the dispositions. An insane delusion that directly causes the exclusion of a beneficiary deprives the testator of capacity in respect of the will, even if the other limbs are satisfied.

Rule: A testator lacks testamentary capacity if a disorder of the mind, such as an insane delusion, influences the dispositions in the will, even if she understands the nature of the act and the extent of her property.

  • A Understanding the act and the property satisfies only some limbs of Banks v Goodfellow; the delusion affects the disposition. (answers a different question)
  • B There is no presumption of incapacity from an unusual or unfair disposition; testators may disinherit children. (wrong rule)
  • C The common law Banks v Goodfellow test continues to govern capacity to make a will; it has not been replaced by the 2005 Act test. (wrong rule)
  • E Age and frailty do not create a presumption of incapacity; the issue is the effect of the delusion on the dispositions. (wrong rule)

Source: Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549

Practise more Wills and the Administration of Estates   All Wills subtopics