Jenkins v Evans (2025): capacity, the Golden Rule and lessons

When HHJ Russen KC handed down his judgment in Jenkins v Evans [2025] EWHC 2438 (Ch), it didn’t just close a four-year family feud over a modest Wiltshire estate - it reaffirmed several cornerstones of English probate law that every private Client lawyer should have etched in their mind.

This was, in many ways, a ‘classic’ challenge to a late-life will - allegations of lack of capacity, want of knowledge and approval, and undue influence - but its procedural history and evidential findings make it a must-read for practitioners in both the contentious and non-contentious spheres.

The Background: A Simple Will, a Long Fight

The late Robert Glyn Evans, a retired grammar school headmaster, executed his final will in March 2017, aged 90. It appointed two professional executors, including Andrew Jenkins, a solicitor who had acted for him for years, and introduced modest legacies to his grandchildren. His daughter, Sarah Evans, challenged the will after her father’s death, alleging that he lacked testamentary capacity, did not understand what he was signing, and had been coerced by her brother.

The Court disagreed - emphatically.

HHJ Russen KC held that the 2017 will was valid. Mr Evans had full testamentary capacity; he knew and approved of what he was signing, and there was no undue influence. The daughter’s allegations were found to be “misguided distractions” rather than credible legal arguments.

 Key Legal Takeaways for Practitioners

1. Banks v Goodfellow (1870) lives on

The Court reaffirmed the Banks v Goodfellow (1870) test as the bedrock of testamentary capacity. Despite modern debates around the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Judge emphasised that Banks remains the correct standard - flexible, functional, and tailored to the individual testator.

Practitioners should note: even at 90, and even amid family conflict, a testator can possess capacity if they understand what they are doing, who might expect to benefit, and the effect of their choices.

“The evidence of the will-drafting solicitor carries all the weight the Court of Appeal in Hughes v Pritchard contemplated,” - HHJ Russen KC

2. Non-compliance with the ‘golden rule’ isn’t fatal

Mr Evans’s solicitor did not obtain a contemporaneous medical assessment. Yet the Judge held that this did not undermine the will’s validity. The so-called “golden rule” - that elderly or seriously ill testators should have their capacity confirmed by a doctor - remains a rule of good practice, not law.

In practice, this decision underscores the importance of detailed attendance notes over tick-box compliance. Mr Jenkins’s meticulous notes, letters, and follow-up meetings provided a contemporaneous record of understanding that more than compensated for the lack of medical involvement.

3. Knowledge and approval flow naturally from good process

Because Mr Evans had capacity and the will was duly executed, the Court had no hesitation in finding that he knew and approved its contents. Mr Jenkins’s records showed the testator reviewing drafts, making rational amendments, and understanding the tax implications of his timing - all powerful indicators that his mind was clear and independent.

4. Undue influence: proof, not suspicion

The daughter alleged ‘collusion’ between her brother and the solicitor. The Judge dismantled that suggestion as baseless. In doing so, he reaffirmed that mere suspicion or family tension does not equate to undue influence. The burden is heavy and rests entirely on the challenger.

For practitioners, this is another reminder to keep independent advice, neutral witnesses, and full file notes at the forefront of will-making where family conflict looms.

5. Procedural discipline matters

The case took four years to reach trial, largely due to the defendant’s repeated, unmeritorious applications - eventually leading to a civil restraint order. HHJ Russen KC criticised the delay and waste of costs. It’s a stark lesson in case management vigilance for litigators: the Court’s patience is not endless.

Broader Implications for the Private Client Sector

For will-drafting solicitors, Jenkins v Evans (2025) is a vindication of careful, process-driven practice. Where you keep contemporaneous notes of meetings, explain executorship options, and ensure the Client acts voluntarily and rationally, the Court will back you.

For contentious practitioners, it’s another reminder that capacity disputes are rarely won on assertion alone. Without cogent medical or documentary evidence, claims of incapacity or undue influence will fail - and may expose challengers to costs and reputational damage.

For firms, it underlines the importance of:

• Training all fee-earners on the Banks v Goodfellow (1870) test;

• Implementing file-note templates capturing reasoning and rationale;

• Maintaining professional independence even when acting for long-standing Clients with difficult families.

Final Thought

This was not a case about who got what - it was about who got to decide. The High Court sided with the solicitor who had kept proper records, exercised judgment and respected his Client’s autonomy. That is exactly what private Client lawyers are supposed to do.

The message is clear: good notes, not golden rules, win Will challenges.