The High Court has ruled that a businessman's final will, which left most of his estate to his two youngest children and largely disinherited his two eldest children, was invalid.

The businessman had been diagnosed with a brain tumour in 2010. Before making his final will in 2019, he had gifted about 80 per cent of his shares in the family business equally to his four children. After his death in 2021, his eldest son and his daughter were shocked to discover that he had left his remaining shares in the business – worth at least £11 million – to his two youngest sons.

The eldest son and the daughter contested the will on the grounds that their father did not have testamentary capacity to make it and did not know and approve its contents. They claimed that a will their father had made in 2017, which had largely split his remaining estate equally between his four children, was his last valid will.

The Court heard evidence from a number of witnesses. It found that, given the businessman's health and the limited evidence in the attendance notes made when the final will was drafted, there was a real doubt as to his testamentary capacity. The two youngest sons therefore bore the burden of proving that he had had capacity.

The Court was unconvinced that a proper assessment of his capacity had been carried out, and there was insufficient evidence to show that the instructions for the will had come from the businessman himself. There was no indication that he realised that the will excluded his two eldest children and that it involved a substantial departure from his previous wills, which had largely treated all of his children equally. Noting that there were 'numerous suspicious circumstances' surrounding the making of the will, the Court was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the businessman had had capacity to make it.

The Court added that, even if he had had capacity, it would not have been persuaded that he knew and approved the will's contents and that it reflected his true testamentary wishes. The Court concluded that the will was invalid and pronounced in favour of the will made in 2017.