Last January we published a blog about Goss-Custard v Templeman, an ironic will dispute case concerning the estate of Lord Templeman who was an eminent Judge and law lord who died in 2014.

Lord Templeman was well known for formulating “the golden rule” for establishing the capacity of a testator. The golden rule provides that where there is an aged testator, the making of that testator’s will ought to be witnessed or approved by a medical practitioner who satisfies himself of the capacity and understanding of the testator (Kenward v Adams [1975]). Whilst this rule is not determinative, following it may well help to avoid will disputes in the future, particularly will disputes regarding the capacity of the deceased. Unfortunately in relation to his own will, the rule set down by Lord Templeman was not followed.

In 2001, Lord Templeman made a will which left the property he had lived in since 1996 to his biological children. In August 2008 Lord Templeman amended his will to leave the property to the children of his second wife and leaving his residuary estate to his biological children. We have previously discussed how the summary judgment brought by his biological children was thrown out. The case has now proceeded to trial.

Lord Templeman’s biological children believed his 2001 will should stand and alleged that his 2008 will had been made when he lacked capacity (as it had not been witnessed by a medical practitioner). In essence, they alleged that Lord Templeman had failed to follow his own “Golden Rule”. They argued that there was no rational explanation for the radical change in his testamentary wishes.

The biological children argued that Lord Templeman was incapable of comprehending and appreciating the claims that they and others had had on his estate. The court disagreed and judgment was handed down on 19 March 2020 and the 2008 will was upheld.

Judge Fancourt in the Chancery Division held that Lord Templeman at all times had been a strong and decisive person and was someone who had been concerned to subjectively do the right thing.  He held that Lord Templeman, at the time the 2008 will was made, did not have a disorder of the mind that had poisoned his affections, perverted his sense of right or prevented the exercise of his natural faculties. Judge Fancourt held that Lord Templeman had been able to comprehend and appreciate the claims to which he ought to have given effect. Lord Templeman’s 2008 will was therefore upheld and admitted to probate in solemn form.

Lack of capacity is one ground for contesting a will but there are many other grounds for challenging a will. If you would like to discuss challenging or disputing a will, inheritance disputes, a probate dispute or any other will dispute or contentious probate matter, please contact our contentious probate solicitors on 01902 424 927 for an initial free consultation. Alternatively, please email us at contentiousprobate@georgegreen.co.uk. In some cases, funding by way of “no win no fee” will be available.