Skip to main content
WUHLD
← Back to insights

Contentious Probate Risk: Preventative Measures in Will Drafting

· 20 min

Executive Summary

Contentious probate claims have increased markedly over recent years, with caveat applications rising 56% from 7,268 in 2019 to 11,362 in 2024. Legal Ombudsman data shows wills and probate complaints increased 28% in 2024/25, with 81% of investigated complaints revealing evidence of poor service. This statistical reality creates significant professional liability exposure. This article examines the five principal grounds for challenging will validity, maps these to specific preventative measures, and proposes a risk-stratification framework for determining when enhanced safeguards are warranted. Particular attention is given to the evidential value of contemporaneous documentation, proper application of the Golden Rule from Kenward v Adams, and preparation for potential reforms under the Law Commission's May 2025 Modernising Wills report. Banks v Goodfellow remains the current capacity test, while Law Commission recommendations await legislative implementation.

1. Introduction: The Statistical Imperative

The volume of contested estates has reached levels that demand systematic attention from private client practitioners. Caveat applications to prevent grants of probate increased from 7,268 in 2019 to 11,362 in 2024, representing a 56% rise over five years.1 This growth reflects broader demographic and social trends: the ageing population (11 million people aged 65 and over, comprising 18.6% of the UK population per the 2021 Census), increasing dementia prevalence (approximately 900,000 people in the UK), complex family structures arising from remarriage and cohabitation, and significant wealth concentration in residential property.2

The Legal Ombudsman's 2024/25 annual data reveals that wills and probate complaints reached 1,128, an increase of 28% on the previous year.3 More significantly, Q1 2025/26 data indicates that 81% of investigated complaints in this practice area showed evidence of poor service.4 These figures suggest that quality failures during will preparation contribute materially to subsequent disputes and regulatory intervention.

For private client solicitors, these statistics translate into dual exposure: professional liability claims where drafting or execution failures contribute to contested probate, and regulatory scrutiny from the SRA. The December 2024 thematic reviews on professional obligations and probate administration signal heightened regulatory attention to this practice area.5 The commercial growth in contentious probate services, with law firms offering this specialism increasing from 73 in 2018 to 268 by October 2022, indicates a well-established market for challenging testamentary documents.6

The central argument of this analysis is that while practitioners cannot eliminate challenge risk, systematic implementation of preventative protocols during instruction-taking, capacity assessment, and execution materially reduces successful challenge rates and provides defensible evidence should disputes arise. The traditional binary approach, characterised as either "gold-plated" capacity assessment or standard drafting, should yield to a risk-stratified methodology calibrated to each instruction's vulnerability profile.

2. Grounds for Challenge: A Practitioner's Taxonomy

Understanding the grounds upon which wills may be challenged enables practitioners to implement targeted preventative measures. Five principal bases for challenge warrant examination: lack of testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and approval, undue influence, fraudulent calumny, and formality failures under section 9 of the Wills Act 1837.

2.1 Testamentary Capacity

The test for testamentary capacity derives from Banks v Goodfellow (1870), requiring the testator to understand the nature of making a will and its effects, comprehend the extent of the property being disposed of, appreciate the claims to which they ought to give effect, and suffer no disorder of the mind that perverts their sense of right or prevents the exercise of natural faculties.7 Leonard v Leonard [2024] EWHC 321 (Ch) confirmed that Banks v Goodfellow "stood the test of time" as the correct and only test for testamentary capacity, reaffirming Walker v Badmin [2015] and Clitheroe v Bond [2021] in holding that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 does not displace the common law test in this context.8

The Law Commission's May 2025 Modernising Wills report recommends replacing the Banks v Goodfellow test with the MCA 2005 capacity test for all testamentary capacity questions.9 The Government welcomed these recommendations in May 2025, but no legislative timetable has been confirmed, and primary legislation has not been introduced as of January 2026. Practitioners must therefore continue to apply Banks v Goodfellow while monitoring legislative developments.

The burden of proof where capacity is challenged lies initially with the propounder of the will. Where the will was duly executed and appears rational on its face, a rebuttable presumption of capacity arises, shifting the evidential burden to the challenger to raise a "real doubt."10

2.2 Knowledge and Approval

A testator must know and approve the contents of their will. Where a will was duly executed by a person with testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval is presumed. This presumption is "very strong" where the will was prepared by a solicitor and read over to the testator before execution, as established in Gill v Woodall and Hawes v Burgess.11

The presumption may be displaced by evidence of suspicious circumstances. Sharp v Hutchins [2015] EWHC 1240 (Ch) confirmed that suspicious circumstances shift the burden to propounders to prove knowledge and approval affirmatively.12 Examples include wills prepared by a beneficiary or connected person, testators who are blind, deaf, illiterate, or have limited English proficiency, radical departures from previous testamentary intentions without recorded explanation, and DIY wills containing non-technical language or apparent errors.

2.3 Undue Influence

Undue influence in the testamentary context requires proof of coercion that overbears the testator's volition. The burden rests on the challenger, distinguishing testamentary undue influence from the equitable presumption applicable to lifetime transactions. In Hubbard v Scott [2011], even where an 87-year-old testator left his estate to a cleaner he had known for less than three months, thereby disinheriting his daughters, no undue influence was found absent evidence of conduct that actually overbore the testator's will.13

The Law Commission's May 2025 report proposes that where a beneficiary was in a position of influence or control over the testator, and the will includes provisions that are unexplained or unnatural, the court may infer undue influence unless the person defending the will proves otherwise.14 This would reverse the current burden of proof in specified circumstances. However, this reform awaits legislation; the current burden remains on challengers.

2.4 Fraudulent Calumny

Edwards v Edwards [2007] EWHC 1119 (Ch) defined fraudulent calumny as occurring where one person "poisons the testator's mind" against another who would otherwise be a natural beneficiary by casting dishonest aspersions on their character, thereby causing the testator to exclude or diminish that person's inheritance.15 The elements require false representations, dishonesty or recklessness, material causation of the exclusion or reduction, and intent to deceive for the perpetrator's benefit.

Whittle v Whittle [2022] EWHC 925 (Ch) demonstrated successful application of this ground, with the will set aside for "deliberate poisoning of the testator's mind."16 Speakman v Muir [2022] resulted in challenges to three wills of a vulnerable elderly testator succeeding on this basis.

2.5 Formality Failures

Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 (as substituted by the Administration of Justice Act 1982) imposes absolute requirements: the will must be in writing, signed by the testator (or by another in their presence and by their direction), the signature made or acknowledged in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time, and each witness must attest and sign in the testator's presence.17

These requirements are not subject to de minimis exceptions; failure of any element invalidates the will. The COVID-19 emergency provisions permitting remote witnessing expired on 31 January 2024, restoring the physical presence requirement in full.18 Section 15 renders gifts to attesting witnesses (or their spouses) void, though such witnesses remain competent to prove the will.

3. Risk Stratification: A Framework for Enhanced Protocols

Not every instruction requires medical capacity assessment, but every practitioner requires a framework for identifying elevated-risk instructions. The risk-stratification approach enables proportionate allocation of resources while ensuring vulnerable instructions receive appropriate safeguards.

3.1 Risk Indicators

The following factors, individually or in combination, should trigger consideration of enhanced protocols:

Age and health factors: Advanced age (particularly over 80), recent serious illness, hospitalisation during the instruction period, known cognitive impairment, dementia diagnosis, or reliance on care services.

Circumstantial vulnerability: Recent bereavement (Key v Key [2010] demonstrates that affective disorder following spousal death can eliminate capacity despite apparent coherence), social isolation, dependence on a beneficiary for care or daily needs, or residence in a care facility.19

Instruction characteristics: Significant departure from previous testamentary intentions without clear rationale, exclusion of expected beneficiaries, dispositions favouring care providers or recent acquaintances, beneficiary involvement in instruction-taking or referral, and instructions taken at short notice or under time pressure.

Family dynamics: Known family conflict, estrangement from children or spouse, blended family complexity, and previous challenges to earlier wills.

3.2 Graduated Response Protocol

Based on risk assessment, practitioners may implement a graduated response:

Standard care (no elevated indicators): Comprehensive attendance notes documenting instructions, capacity observation, and execution. Clear recording of the testator's reasons for dispositions, particularly where departures from intestacy or previous patterns occur.

Enhanced protocol (one or more risk indicators): Golden Rule compliance through independent medical assessment by a practitioner who satisfies themselves of capacity and records their examination and findings. This does not validate the will but creates contemporaneous professional evidence addressing capacity at the material time.

Comprehensive safeguards (multiple risk indicators or significant concern): Full independent capacity assessment by a specialist (often a consultant psychiatrist or psychogeriatrician), potentially combined with video recording of instruction-taking (with appropriate consent), independent witnesses unconnected with beneficiaries, and detailed letters of wishes documenting reasoning.

3.3 The Golden Rule in Context

Kenward v Adams [1975] established that for aged testators or those who have suffered serious illness, "the making of a will... ought to be witnessed or approved by a medical practitioner who satisfies himself of the capacity and understanding of the testator, and records and preserves his examination and finding."20

Sharp v Adam [2006] EWCA Civ 449 clarified that the Golden Rule is "a rule of solicitors' good practice, not a rule of law giving conclusive status to evidence obtained in compliance with the rule."21 Compliance does not validate a will; non-compliance does not invalidate one. The purpose, as Briggs J stated in Key v Key [2010], is "to assist in the avoidance of disputes, or at least the minimisation of their scope."22

Key v Key provides a cautionary illustration. George Key, aged 89, made a will one week after his wife of 65 years died. The solicitor, with 50 years' experience, took instructions without capacity assessment. The will was subsequently set aside for lack of testamentary capacity caused by bereavement-induced affective disorder. The Golden Rule would have required, at minimum, inquiry into whether the testator's ability to comprehend and weigh relevant considerations was impaired by grief.23

4. Documentation as Evidence: The Gestmin Principle

The evidential value of contemporaneous file notes cannot be overstated. Courts consistently prefer contemporaneous documentation to witness recollection years after the event. The principle established in Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm) and applied in probate contexts in Mundil-Williams v Williams [2021] EWHC 586 (Ch) reflects judicial recognition that memory is reconstructive and unreliable, while contemporaneous records capture events as they occurred.24

4.1 Attendance Note Content

Effective attendance notes for will instructions should record:

Capacity indicators: Observations of the testator's orientation (time, place, person), responsiveness, ability to understand and discuss matters, and any signs of confusion, repetition, or difficulty following conversation.

Instructions and reasoning: Not merely the dispositive provisions but the testator's expressed reasons for their choices, particularly where these depart from expected distributions. Recording "Mrs Smith explained she wished to exclude her son because of the breakdown in their relationship following his refusal to visit during her illness" provides evidence of autonomous decision-making.

Advice given and responses: Documentation that advice was provided regarding, for example, Inheritance Act claims and the testator's response to that advice.

Execution observations: Note of the testator reading (or having read to them) the will, confirmation of understanding, observation of signing, and confirmation that witnesses were present simultaneously.

4.2 Leonard v Leonard Lessons

Leonard v Leonard [2024] exposed the consequences of inadequate documentation. The tax adviser who drafted the contested will was criticised as an "unsatisfactory witness" partly due to inadequate file notes; no attendance note confirmed detailed instructions had been taken on a large estate.25 Where file notes are sparse, practitioners become vulnerable to adverse credibility findings when challenged on their recollection of events years earlier.

The SRA's November 2019 Wills Guidance identifies four quality failures: inadequacy (wills failing to account for the entire estate), legality (potentially illegal provisions), inconsistency (contradictory language or logic), and insufficient detail (missing items, people, or descriptions).26 Each of these failures becomes more likely where documentation is inadequate and less defensible where file notes are comprehensive.

4.3 Letters of Wishes: Evidential and Deterrent Value

Letters of wishes serve multiple functions beyond guiding discretionary trustees. For contentious probate prevention, they provide:

Evidential value: Contemporaneous documentation of the testator's reasoning in their own words (even if assisted in drafting) creates evidence of autonomous decision-making and understanding of their circumstances.

Deterrent effect: A letter explaining why certain distributions were made may discourage disappointed beneficiaries from challenging, or enable executors to address concerns before litigation by explaining the testator's reasoning.

Inheritance Act context: Letters addressing the testator's view of potential claimants' needs and circumstances may inform judicial assessment of whether the will makes "reasonable financial provision."

4.4 Larke v Nugus Preparation

Larke v Nugus [1979] established that the will-preparing solicitor can be required to disclose information about the circumstances of will preparation and execution, regardless of executor appointment.27 The Law Society advises providing the will file as the quickest resolution to such requests.

Practitioners should therefore prepare files anticipating potential disclosure. Selective or incomplete records increase challenge risk by creating adverse inferences. Comprehensive contemporaneous documentation serves both the client (by reducing successful challenge probability) and the practitioner (by demonstrating professional diligence if regulatory scrutiny follows).

5. Execution and Formality Safeguards

Formality failures under section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 remain the most entirely preventable ground for invalidity. Unlike capacity and undue influence challenges, which involve evidential disputes about the testator's mental state, formality requirements are absolute and capable of certain compliance.

5.1 Attestation Clause Function

An attestation clause is not legally required for a valid will but creates a rebuttable presumption of due execution. A standard clause recording compliance with section 9 requirements shifts the burden to challengers to provide convincing evidence of non-compliance.28 Omission of an attestation clause removes this presumption, requiring affirmative proof of due execution.

Where execution occurs in circumstances departing from the standard (for example, where the testator is physically unable to sign and directs another to sign on their behalf), the attestation clause should accurately describe the actual execution procedure followed.

5.2 Witness Selection

Witnesses must be competent (adults of sound mind) and should be independent. Section 15 of the Wills Act 1837 renders gifts to attesting witnesses void.29 While this does not invalidate the will, it creates obvious risks of challenge and client dissatisfaction.

Ideal witnesses are professionally connected to the solicitor (but not beneficially interested), able to give coherent evidence years later if required, and without conflict of interest. Witnesses drawn from office staff, subject to firm policies on record-keeping, often satisfy these criteria.

5.3 Physical Presence Requirements

Following expiry of the COVID-19 emergency provisions on 31 January 2024, physical presence is again required for valid execution.30 The testator must sign or acknowledge their signature in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time, and each witness must attest in the testator's presence.

The Law Commission's May 2025 report recommends provisions for electronic wills executed via a "reliable system" and potentially with remote presence.31 However, these recommendations await legislative implementation; current practice requires physical execution compliance.

6. Preparing for Reform: The Law Commission Context

The Law Commission's Modernising Wills report, published May 2025, recommends significant reforms to the law of wills.32 While the Government welcomed these recommendations, no legislative timetable has been confirmed, and primary legislation has not been introduced as of January 2026. Practitioners must therefore continue to apply existing law while preparing for potential changes.

6.1 Capacity Test Reform

The recommendation to replace Banks v Goodfellow with the MCA 2005 capacity test would align testamentary capacity with the statutory framework governing lifetime decisions. The MCA 2005 test requires inability to understand, retain, use and weigh information, or communicate a decision, with capacity being decision-specific and time-specific.33

Should this reform be enacted, practitioners familiar with MCA 2005 assessments (for example, in the Court of Protection context) would find the framework familiar. The practical impact for well-prepared practitioners may be limited, since comprehensive capacity assessment already addresses the elements of both tests.

6.2 Undue Influence Burden Shift

The proposed reform permitting courts to infer undue influence where a beneficiary held a position of influence or control and the will contains "unexplained or unnatural" provisions would represent a significant change. Currently, challengers must prove actual coercion.34

If enacted, this reform would increase the importance of documenting the testator's independent reasoning for dispositions that might appear unnatural and ensuring instruction-taking occurs without beneficiary involvement. Letters of wishes explaining the testator's reasons would acquire heightened importance.

6.3 Current Practice Implications

Prudent practitioners may wish to anticipate potential reforms by:

  • Structuring capacity assessments to address both Banks v Goodfellow elements and MCA 2005 criteria
  • Ensuring instruction-taking occurs without beneficiary presence
  • Documenting testator reasoning comprehensively, particularly for dispositions favouring persons in positions of influence
  • Creating file records that would withstand close scrutiny under either current or proposed evidential burdens in contested proceedings

Conclusion

The statistical evidence for rising contentious probate creates an unambiguous case for systematic preventative protocols during will preparation. The 56% increase in caveat applications over five years and the 28% rise in Legal Ombudsman complaints indicate a contested landscape that shows no signs of stabilising. Private client practitioners who treat preventative documentation as an administrative burden rather than an evidential strategy expose themselves and their clients to avoidable risk.

The analysis presented demonstrates that prevention requires neither uniform gold-plating nor resignation to inevitable challenge. Risk stratification enables proportionate response: standard care for straightforward instructions, Golden Rule compliance for elevated-risk matters, and comprehensive safeguards where multiple vulnerability indicators present. The Golden Rule itself, properly understood, is guidance for good practice rather than a guarantee of validity, as Key v Key so starkly illustrated.

Documentation emerges as the critical variable. Courts prefer contemporaneous file notes to witness recollection; the Gestmin principle applies as much in probate as in commercial litigation. Attendance notes recording not merely instructions but the testator's reasoning, capacity observations, and execution compliance create the evidential foundation for defending validity years later. Letters of wishes serve both evidential and deterrent functions.

Formality compliance remains the most entirely preventable ground for challenge. Section 9 requirements are absolute; attestation clauses create presumptions of due execution; physical presence requirements have returned following expiry of COVID-19 emergency provisions.

The Law Commission's May 2025 recommendations, while welcomed by Government, await legislative implementation. Banks v Goodfellow remains the test for testamentary capacity; the current burden on challengers to prove undue influence has not shifted. Practitioners should monitor legislative developments while applying current law with appropriate documentation that would also satisfy potential future requirements.

Systematic prevention is both a fundamental professional obligation under the SRA Code of Conduct and a competitive differentiator in an increasingly contested legal services market. The choice is not between comprehensive safeguards and commercial efficiency but rather between proportionate risk management and entirely avoidable exposure.

CPD Declaration

Estimated Reading Time: 20 minutes Technical Level: Advanced Practice Areas: Private Client, Wills and Probate, Contentious Probate, Risk Management

Learning Objectives

Upon completing this article, practitioners will be able to:

  1. Identify the five principal grounds for challenging will validity and their respective evidential burdens
  2. Apply a risk-stratification framework to determine when enhanced capacity assessment protocols are warranted
  3. Evaluate the evidential value of contemporaneous attendance notes in defending will validity under the Gestmin principle
  4. Distinguish between the current testamentary capacity law (Banks v Goodfellow) and the Law Commission's proposed MCA 2005 reform
  5. Design a documentation protocol that addresses Larke v Nugus disclosure obligations while supporting defence of will validity

SRA Competency Mapping

  • A3: Maintain and develop knowledge and skills necessary to carry out role
  • A5: Apply understanding of client needs and professional duties
  • B2: Take steps to meet the legal services needs of clients
  • B3: Identify the work required and complete tasks in order to service client needs

Reflective Questions

  1. How would current capacity assessment protocols in your practice require adaptation if the Law Commission's recommendation to replace Banks v Goodfellow with the MCA 2005 test is enacted?
  2. What additional file documentation would strengthen defence against a knowledge and approval challenge in instructions where a beneficiary was present during discussions?
  3. How might the proposed burden shift on undue influence affect advice given to clients whose instructions create dispositions that could be characterised as "unnatural"?

Professional Disclaimer

The information presented reflects the regulatory and legislative position as of 2026-01-28. Regulations, tax rules, and professional guidance are subject to change. Readers should independently verify all information before acting and seek advice from appropriately qualified solicitors, financial advisors, or other professionals for their specific circumstances.

Neither WUHLD nor the author accepts liability for any actions taken or decisions made based on the content of this article. Professional readers are reminded of their own regulatory obligations and duty of care to their clients.

Footnotes

Footnotes

  1. HM Courts & Tribunals Service data (Freedom of Information request via Taylor Rose), reported in Legal Futures (January 2025). https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/applications-to-block-probate-rise-to-all-time-high ↩

  2. Office for National Statistics, Census 2021: Population by Age (2022). https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates ↩

  3. Legal Ombudsman, 2024/25 Annual Complaints Data and Insight (April 2025). https://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/information-centre/data-centre/complaints-data/legal-ombudsman-202425-annual-complaints-data-and-insight/ ↩

  4. Legal Ombudsman, 2025/26 Quarter 1 Complaints Data (July 2025). https://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/information-centre/data-centre/complaints-data/202526-quarter-1-complaints-data/ ↩

  5. Solicitors Regulation Authority, Thematic Review: Professional Obligations (December 2024). https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/thematic-reviews/ ↩

  6. IRN Research, UK Wills, Probate & Trusts Market Report (October 2022). https://www.ibblaw.co.uk/insights/whats-behind-the-increase-in-contentious-probate-cases ↩

  7. Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549. https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Banks_v_Goodfellow_(1870)_LR_5_QB_549 ↩

  8. Leonard v Leonard [2024] EWHC 321 (Ch). https://www.macfarlanes.com/what-we-think/102eli5/banks-v-goodfellow-stands-the-test-of-time-102gxhc/ ↩

  9. Law Commission, Modernising Wills (May 2025). https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/wills/ ↩

  10. Walker v Badmin [2015] 1 WLR 1; Clitheroe v Bond [2021] EWHC 1102 (Ch). ↩

  11. Gill v Woodall [2010] EWCA Civ 1430; Hawes v Burgess [2013] EWCA Civ 94. ↩

  12. Sharp v Hutchins [2015] EWHC 1240 (Ch). https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/dispute-resolution-law-blog/knowledge-and-approval-when-is-a-will-suspicious ↩

  13. Hubbard v Scott [2011] EWHC 2750 (Ch). ↩

  14. Law Commission, Modernising Wills: Undue Influence Recommendations (May 2025). https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/modernising-wills-law-critical-changes-to-undue-influence-and-knowledge-and-approval/ ↩

  15. Edwards v Edwards [2007] EWHC 1119 (Ch). ↩

  16. Whittle v Whittle [2022] EWHC 925 (Ch). https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/content/103529 ↩

  17. Wills Act 1837, s.9 (as substituted by Administration of Justice Act 1982, s.17). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4and1Vict/7/26/section/9 ↩

  18. Law Society, Video Witnessing of Wills (February 2024). https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/private-client/video-witnessing-wills ↩

  19. Key v Key [2010] EWHC 408 (Ch). https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Key_v_Key_(2010)_EWHC_408_(Ch) ↩

  20. Kenward v Adams [1975] (Templeman J). https://www.magdalenchambers.co.uk/the-golden-rule/ ↩

  21. Sharp v Adam [2006] EWCA Civ 449. ↩

  22. Key v Key [2010] EWHC 408 (Ch), per Briggs J. ↩

  23. WillPack, Case Review: Key v Key. https://www.willpack.co.uk/case-review-key-v-key/ ↩

  24. Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm); Mundil-Williams v Williams [2021] EWHC 586 (Ch). https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2021/03/16/solicitors-and-attendance-notes-judges-nearly-always-prefer-the-contemporaneous-notes/ ↩

  25. Clarke Willmott, What Can Happen When a Solicitor Does Not Follow Best Practice (2024). https://www.clarkewillmott.com/insights/what-can-happen-when-a-solicitor-does-not-follow-best-practice-when-drafting-a-will/ ↩

  26. Solicitors Regulation Authority, Drafting and Preparation of Wills (November 2019). https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/drafting-preparation-wills/ ↩

  27. Law Society, Disputed Wills Guidance. https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/private-client/disputed-wills ↩

  28. Stephens Scown, Section 9 Formality Requirements. https://www.stephens-scown.co.uk/disputes-with-individuals/inheritance-and-trust-disputes/inheritance-trusts-series-grounds-to-challenge-will-lack-of-proper-formality/ ↩

  29. Wills Act 1837, s.15. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4and1Vict/7/26/section/15 ↩

  30. Kreston Reeves, The End of Remote Will Witnessing (February 2024). https://www.krestonreeves.com/news/the-end-of-remote-will-witnessing-in-the-uk-what-it-means-for-you/ ↩

  31. Law Commission, Modernising Wills: Electronic Wills Recommendations (May 2025). https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/wills/ ↩

  32. Law Commission, Modernising Wills Report (May 2025). https://www.macfarlanes.com/what-we-think/102eli5/modernising-wills-the-law-commission-publishes-its-final-report-102kbjb/ ↩

  33. Mental Capacity Act 2005, ss.2-3. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/9/section/2 ↩

  34. Rea v Rea [2024] EWCA Civ. https://www.solegal.co.uk/insights/wills-and-undue-influence-lessons-rea-v-rea-2024 ↩