Following the decision in Clitheroe v Bond [2021], Amanda Smallcombe of Birkett Long along with the barristers instructed in the case, Thomas Dumont QC and Edward Hicks, both of Radcliffe Chambers, presented a webinar on the legal implications of the case.

This bitter probate dispute was between John Clitheroe and his sister Susan Bond, who was our client. The case concerned the validity of two wills made by their late mother, Jean Clitheroe. Jean almost entirely excluded Susan from those wills, the first of which was made shortly after her daughter, Debs, died. Debs’ death was a pinnacle moment and when the family relationship drastically changed. Beforehand, Susan was very close to her mother but less than a year after Debs died, all contact ceased due to allegations Jean made about Sue. After a five-day trial before Deputy Master Linwood in March 2020, it was held both wills were invalid as Jean was suffering from ‘insane delusions’ about Susan and her mind was poisoned against her. John Clitheroe did not discharge the burden of proving his mother was not suffering from delusions, or if she was, that it did not impact upon the making of her wills. John Clitheroe appealed. The main basis of the appeal was that the wrong tests for testamentary capacity and delusions was applied at first instance.

In the webinar, Amanda helpfully set out the background of the case, before Thomas Dumont QC went on to discuss the first ground of the appeal: Namely whether the test for testamentary capacity is the one set out in Banks v Goodfellow or whether it has been replaced/superseded by the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Edward Hicks then discussed the next ground of the appeal which concerned the legal test for insane delusions, and the role of experts in contentious probate cases.

On appeal the court decided that John could not raise the issues of whether the correct test was Banks v Goodfellow or the MCA, as he had not raised this at the first trial. The Judge did say, however, that the argument would have failed anyway. In relation to delusions, the court has adjourned the issues to allow the parties time to reach a settlement. Nonetheless the Judge said a delusion must be a false belief which was not a simple mistake which could be corrected. It must be irrational, fixed and out of keeping with the person’s background.

A recording of the webinar is available to view here: