Careful Records Carry Cases: Litigation Lessons from Jenkins v Evans [2025] EWHC 2438 (Ch)

In 2017, a retired school headmaster made a new will, leaving the majority of his estate to one child. Years later, the arrangement sparked a legal dispute that would test the boundaries of testamentary capacity, family loyalty, and the role of solicitors in safeguarding a testator’s intentions.

Context of the dispute

The testator, a retired headmaster in his nineties, had two children whose relationship had deteriorated over the years. His 2017 will appointed his solicitor as executor and left the bulk of his estate to one child. Following his death, the other child contested the document, asserting that their parent lacked the mental capacity to make the will, did not fully understand its contents, and had been improperly influenced by the beneficiary and the solicitor.

No medical assessment was obtained to support or dispute these claims. On the face of it, the circumstances suggested a high risk of litigation. Yet the court ultimately upheld the will, placing significant weight on the solicitor’s contemporaneous notes, correspondence, and written explanations. The judge described the claimant’s challenge as lacking a substantive evidential basis.

Testamentary capacity: applying Banks v Goodfellow

The judgment confirms that the legal test for capacity continues to be governed by Banks v Goodfellow (1870), rather than the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The court found that the testator understood the nature and effect of his will, the scope of his estate, and the claims of potential beneficiaries. Age, infirmity, or general medical conditions alone do not equate to incapacity. This distinction is crucial: testamentary capacity remains a question of legal understanding, not solely a medical determination. While medical input can be useful, it is not required to establish capacity in court.

Knowledge, approval, and the role of documentation

A key lesson from Jenkins v Evans is the power of contemporaneous, detailed records. The solicitor’s attendance notes, letters, and explanations provided a clear account of the testator’s understanding, the information he was given, and his independent decision-making.

By contrast, cases with sparse or reconstructed notes often lead to protracted disputes and credibility challenges. Here, the careful documentation provided a solid evidential foundation that persuaded the court. The judgment demonstrates that thorough records can be as important as any medical opinion in defending a will.

Undue influence: evidence over assumption

Claims of undue influence are notoriously difficult to prove. The court found no evidence that the beneficiary or solicitor coerced or dominated the testator’s decisions. The claimant relied on assumptions about what their parent would have wanted, but emotion and speculation cannot replace tangible evidence.

For practitioners, this reinforces the need to advise prospective claimants about the high evidential threshold required: suspicion, disappointment, or persuasion does not equate to coercion. For defendants, impartial witnesses and transparent professional conduct can decisively counter undue influence allegations.

The “golden rule” and its practical significance

The absence of a medical assessment — sometimes called the “golden rule” — was raised by the claimant as a procedural concern. The court clarified that while obtaining a medical opinion remains sensible practice, it is not a legal requirement. The lack of such a certificate did not undermine the will’s validity, given the solicitor’s comprehensive records demonstrating capacity and understanding.

From a litigation perspective, this is crucial. Assertions of procedural failure carry little weight if the evidence demonstrates that the testator acted independently and with comprehension.

Practical lessons for litigation

For claimants:

• Base challenges on solid evidence, not emotion or assumption.
• Identify gaps in documentation early, as missing notes are often pivotal in disputes.
• Assess claims of capacity realistically; without supporting facts or medical evidence, these arguments often fail.

For defendants and solicitors:

• Maintain thorough, contemporaneous records — these are the strongest defense in will disputes.
• Remain neutral throughout the drafting and execution process; the court values independent, impartial conduct.
• Prepare witnesses carefully, especially professionals, whose credibility can be determinative in capacity or undue influence claims.

Emerging trends

While it is early to assess the full impact of Jenkins v Evans, the judgment may discourage speculative challenges based solely on age, infirmity, or family discord. It signals that the courts will uphold properly executed wills supported by detailed records, even in the context of longstanding family conflict.

For practitioners, it also highlights a potential shift: future litigation may focus less on broad claims of incapacity and undue influence and more on detailed evidential disputes regarding execution, interpretation, and estate administration.

Key takeaways

Jenkins v Evans illustrates that meticulous records, professional neutrality, and adherence to process are central to defending contested wills. Medical input can help, but the case confirms that the solicitor’s documentation often carries decisive weight.

In contentious probate matters, the lesson is clear: good notes protect not just the will itself, but the validity of the estate planning process. Properly recorded decisions and professional conduct can withstand years of scrutiny and challenge.

At BBS Law, our Litigation Team advises on all aspects of contentious probate, will challenges, and capacity disputes. If you would like guidance on how Jenkins v Evans may affect ongoing or potential claims, our team would be pleased to assist.

Reference: Jenkins v Evans [2025] EWHC 2438 (Ch) — Full judgment on BAILII

Image Credit