When assessing a contested Will, the Courts must often determine whether a Will is legally valid, especially when it doesn’t follow a traditional format.
One such instance was the case of The British Diabetic Association v Chenery (2024), which questioned the validity of a Will written on the back of two torn-up pieces of food packaging, including a fish fillets box and a Mr Kipling mince pie box.
What can we learn from The British Diabetic Association v Chenery (2024)?
This case offers valuable insight into how the Courts handle unusual wills and the kind of evidence required when a Will is challenged or unclear.
For those involved in a disputed estate or concerned about testamentary intention, it’s a powerful reminder of the importance of getting it right.
It is established that a will can be written on anything as long as it is compliant with The Wills Act 1837 ("The Act"), so the case arose not because of the strange nature of what the will was written on, but rather because the two pieces of packaging were disconnected and the circumstances in which the will came into being were not entirely clear.
The facts of the case
Mr Chenery was found dead in his home on the 4th of May 2021.
When his body was discovered by police, so were the two pieces of cardboard. The contents were alarming, written out in block letters, seemingly all in one go in the same stream of thought. Mr Chenery spoke about “hitting rock bottom” and “not being able to cope with life anymore”. He also stated that “everything he has does not mean a thing to him” and instructed that all of his belongings and assets should be given to The Diabetic Society.
The second page featured Mr Chenery’s signature and two signatures from his neighbours, who served as attesting witnesses. His neighbours maintained that Mr Chenery’s signature was already on the document when he brought it to their house for them to sign. Mr Chenery then went home and took his own life shortly thereafter.
The Probate Registry's refusal
On an application to prove both sheets of the document, the Probate Registry refused to admit the first page due to the sheets not being connected. While the second page, with the signatures at the bottom, had been properly executed, there was insufficient evidence that the first page had been executed in compliance with section 9 of The Act. Therefore, the matter came to court.
The Probate claim and family position
The Diabetes Association issued a probate claim, joining one of Mr Chenery’s sisters as a defendant, and appointing her as a representative beneficiary under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) for the rest of the family members (who would not receive the benefits under the first sheet if it were deemed valid). The family did not contest the charity’s claim to prove both sheets.
They also confirmed that there was history of diabetes running in the family, and that Mr Chenery had wished to benefit the charity. As it was undefended by the family members, the matter was listed for a trial on written evidence. The task was for the charity to persuade the court that, despite the hesitation of the Probate Registry, both sheets were admissible to probate, not just the second page.
Legal Requirements Under Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837
Under section 9 of the Act, a testator must sign their will, or acknowledge their signature in the presence of two witnesses. Usually the testator will sign in the presence of two witnesses, but where he or she has already done so, and the question is one of acknowledgement, then this can take many forms. A will is often composed of multiple sheets, but it is not necessary for every sheet to be signed and witnessed.
On the contrary, the law provides that section 9 will be satisfied where all of the sheets are in the same room as the testator at the time of execution. Where sheets are found stapled or bound in some way at the time of death, it is presumed they were bound at the time of execution. Therefore, most wills compromising multiple sheets are valid.
In the case of Mr Chenerys will, the sheets were separate and disconnected, so the position was more complicated. The charity’s position was that both sheets were presumptively in the same room at the time of execution, notwithstanding the fact that the attesting witnesses had not seen the first page.
Factors supporting a valid two-page Will
The court decided that the pagination of numbers (1) and (2) supported a conclusion that Mr Chenery considered the documents to be a two-page whole rather than two separate items. Secondly, the pages were in one hand and written in one pen. It was also presumed that as the gifts were set out by Mr Chenery in descending order of value and importance, providing further validation that the reading of the will ought to be as a two-page document.
The master also observed that “Although the deceased did not show the first page to the witnesses it seems extremely likely that the pages were written in one go and would have been kept and taken together to the home of the witnesses”.
The Court’s final decision
In other words, the two pieces were clearly intended to constitute a composite whole, which in turn supported the presumption that they were treated together, and held together, at the time of execution. The Court therefore ordered that both pages be admitted to probate.
If you're facing uncertainty over the validity of a Will, or you're involved in a dispute over a loved one’s estate, our specialist team is here to help. We advise individuals and families across England and Wales on all aspects of contesting a will, contentious probate, and probate litigation.
Key Contact
James Wallace
Contentious Trusts & Probate Partner
James is a Partner in the firm and leads the dedicated Contentious Trusts and Probate team. He deals with complex and high value estate and trust disputes, Inheritance Act 1975 claims including those with a cross-border or overseas element.
