Case Summary - Banks V Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549

Facts

John Banks was a wealthy man who owned a considerable estate. He had a history of mental illness, including delusions and epilepsy.

In December 1863, he made a new will that left his entire estate to his niece, Margaret Goodfellow. Banks died two years later, and Ms Goodfellow died shortly after that.

His heir-at-law, William Banks, challenged the validity of the will on the basis that Banks was not of sound mind when he made it.

Legal principles

A testator – the person making the will – must have a sound disposing mind for the will to be valid. This means that the testator must:

·        understand the nature of the act of making a will and its effects;

·        understand the extent of their property and what they are giving away;

·        be aware of the natural objects of their bounty – the people who would normally be expected to inherit from them;

·        be able to comprehend and appreciate the claims of those objects;

·        be free from any delusions or hallucinations that would affect their ability to make a rational decision about their property.

Decision

The court found that Banks did have a sound disposing mind when he made the will. They held that he was aware of the nature of the act of making a will and its effects and that he understood the extent of his property and what he was giving away. They also found that he was aware of the people who would normally inherit and that could comprehend and appreciate the possibility that they may claim.

Therefore, the will was held to be valid.

More recent cases

The Banks v Goodfellow test has been cited and followed in many subsequent cases, even where the facts differ. Some examples include:

·        Re Beaney (1978) 1 WLR 779: This case involved a woman who made a gift to a daughter shortly after being diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. The court found that she did not have a sound disposing mind when she made the gift.

·        Masterman-Lister v Brutton & Co [2002] EWCA Civ 1889: Mr Masterman-Lister suffered significant physical and mental injuries in an accident and then settled his injury claim. Sometime later, he sought to re-open the claim on the basis that he did not have the capacity to accept the settlement. The court decided, using Banks v Goodfellow and other capacity tests, that the claimant was of sound mind throughout.

·        Clitheroe, Re Probate [2021] EWHC 1102 (Ch): Mr Clitheroe and his sister, Mrs Bond, were in a dispute over a will made by their mother while suffering from depression and insane delusions regarding Mrs Bond. The High Court confirmed that the test in Banks v Goodfellow is still the correct test for determining testamentary capacity and that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 has not replaced it.

Significance

The case of Banks v Goodfellow established the test for testamentary capacity that is still used today. However, the test is not always easy to apply, and the courts have had to grapple with it in complex and nuanced circumstances in many cases.