Re edwards

🔍 Week 2 of ‘Behind the Will’
Every Friday, I share a notable private client law case, offering insights into its implications and what it teaches us about estate planning, wills, and inheritance law. Whether you’re a legal professional or someone just interested in private client matters, I hope these posts spark thoughtful discussions and provide valuable perspectives.

⚖️ Case of the Week: Re Edwards – Testamentary Capacity and the Banks v Goodfellow Test
In Re Edwards [2007] EWHC 1119 (Ch), the will of the deceased was challenged on the grounds that he lacked testamentary capacity due to his mental health problems. The High Court applied the classic Banks v Goodfellow (1870) test, which requires that a testator must:
1. Understand the nature of making a will and its effects,
2. Understand the extent of their property,
3. Appreciate the claims of potential beneficiaries, and
4. Not suffer from a mental disorder that influences their decisions.

The court ultimately upheld the will, concluding that Mr Edwards did possess the necessary capacity when making it.
This case reaffirms that even in modern disputes, the Banks v Goodfellow principles remain central when assessing testamentary capacity.

🔑 Key Takeaways:
The Banks v Goodfellow Test Endures: Over 150 years later, it continues to be the benchmark for capacity disputes.
Medical Evidence is Key: Courts rely heavily on expert evidence when evaluating whether a testator had sufficient mental capacity.
Capacity ≠ Perfect Health: A person may have mental health issues yet still retain the capacity to make a valid will.

Stay tuned for next week’s case commentary, where we’ll look at another landmark decision shaping private client law.