Judgment handed down in Bond v Webster [2024] EWHC 1972 (Ch)
The High Court has today handed down judgment in the contentious probate claim Bond v Webster following a four-week long trial before Michael Green J, in which three members of chambers were involved.
The trial concerned the validity of a will signed in 2019 by Reginald Bond, known as Reg, a self-made multi-millionaire tyre businessman and racehorse breeder and owner who, following a brain tumour diagnosis in 2010 and a fall in 2014, suffered from cognitive and mobility issues and required round-the-clock care.
Penelope Reed KC and Emilia Carslaw, instructed by Withers LLP, appeared on behalf of the testator’s eldest children, Mike and Lindsay Bond, who successfully challenged the 2019 will on the grounds of both lack of testamentary capacity and want of knowledge and approval.
Arabella Adams, instructed by Howard Kennedy LLP and led by Clare Stanley KC of Wilberforce Chambers and Harry Martin of Serle Court, appeared on behalf of the testator’s other two children, Charlie and Greg Bond, who sought to propound the 2019 Will under which they were the estate’s major beneficiaries.
The 2019 will excluded Mike and Lindsay from benefitting from Reg’s most valuable asset – his shares in the tyre business – cutting them out of the bulk of Reg’s remaining wealth. The circumstances surrounding the will’s preparation and execution bordered on extraordinary, being, as the Judge found, part of a “plan” orchestrated by Charlie to gain control over Reg’s financial and business affairs. The “plan” and the will-making process were deliberately kept secret from Mike and Lindsay, with the assistance of Reg’s carers, who were “spying” on Mike and Lindsay for Charlie.
Michael Green J accepted Mike and Lindsay’s submissions that although the will was prepared and witnessed by an experienced will-draftsman, who had held 6 meetings with Reg, she had not assessed his capacity to make a will. Indeed, Reg had not played any real part in the will-making process; the draftsman was rather improperly taking her instructions from others, including Charlie, and liaising throughout the will-making process with Charlie’s own solicitor, Duncan Rann, and Charlie’s solicitor wife, Katie – both of whom practised from the draftsman’s small firm.
The trial, which involved 12 days of evidence from 22 witnesses, is one of the longest contentious probate trials to take place in the High Court. The judge praised all counsel for their “excellent submissions and conduct of the case”.
The judgment may be read using the link below.
