The case of Bond v Webster centred around the validity of a will signed in 2019 by Reginald Bond, known by family and friends as Reg. This probate trial was one of the longest in High Court history, featuring over 20 witnesses throughout the four-week trial.

Background

Reg, a self-made multimillionaire businessman and racehorse owner/breeder, had four children. His previous will divided his estate equally between the four children. However, the 2019 will excluded two of his children, Mike and Lindsay, from inheriting shares in his tyre business, the estate’s most valuable asset (approx. £11m). Mike and Lindsay had a strained relationship with their siblings, Charlie and Graham (the defendants), and believed that Charlie and Graham had manipulated Reg to gain control over his assets, and that it was their influence over him that led Reg to execute the 2019 will, disinheriting their two siblings to their own personal advantage. Although the question of undue influence was raised in pre-action correspondence, Mike and Lindsay did not pursue this in the proceedings. Rather, the two issues to be decided were whether Reg had testamentary capacity and whether Reg knew and approved of the contents of the disputed documents.

Judgment

Justice Green concluded that Charlie had orchestrated a plan to control Reg’s financial and business affairs. This included using Reg’s carers to spy on Mike and Lindsay, as Reg required round-the-clock care.

Justice Green found that Reg lacked testamentary capacity, as the legal requirements outlined in Banks v Goodfellow were not met. Despite having six meetings with a will-draftsman, the draftsman failed to assess Reg’s capacity and primarily took instructions from Charlie, not Reg. In addition, the claimants were successful in their claim that Reg neither knew nor approved the contents of the 2019 will.

As a result, Mike and Lindsay successfully challenged the 2019 will on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and want of knowledge and approval. The Court ordered that the 2017 will be reinstated, ensuring an equal division of Reg’s assets between all four children (with the defendants also having to pick up the costs of losing the claim).