Peter Hungerford-Welch, associate dean, The City Law School, City University London. www.city.ac.uk/law
Couwenbergh v Valkova [2008] EWHC 2451 (Ch), [2008] All ER (D) 264 (Oct)
For a will to be valid, the law does not call for a perfectly balanced mind, nor is a will to be pronounced against merely because the testator was moved by capricious, frivolous, mean or even bad motives. Where the will is rational on its face (and duly executed) the court will presume that the testator was mentally competent, and so the burden rests on those alleging it to adduce evidence of the testator’s unsoundness of mind. However, once there is evidence before the court which credibly calls into question the testator’s capacity to make a will at the time the will was made, the burden shifts to those who seek to propound the will to prove that the testator had the required mental capacity to make it.
