The absence of lawyer involvement in the amended will of a single mother was part of the problem in a dispute over which document achieved her final wishes.

His Honour Judge Berkley, sitting as a judge of the High Court, found Joanne Abraham’s later will did not achieve what she wanted, which was ‘to secure the benefit of her estate for her children, apportioned to reflect their life-time gifts’.

Abraham died in February 2021 of terminal bone cancer, having been diagnosed with breast cancer in 2000. She was 58 and left two adult children, Henrietta and Tom, and their younger sibling Simon.

Abraham, referred to as Jo in the 85-page judgment, made a will in 2008 which she altered in 2019 making Simon the executor. The 2019 will was drafted using a template from the internet.

Last will and testament

Source: iStock

The judgment in Henrietta Ingram & Anor v Simon Timothy Abraham & Anor said Joanne’s intentions were that her children would end up as equals overall, taking into account any lifetime gifts, and she was ‘trusting Simon to look after Tom and Henrietta rather than finalising things in the will’.

Finding that the 2008 will, and not the 2019 version, should be admitted to probate, the judge said Joanne ‘thought that Simon would inherit her estate to distribute it as per her orally and repeatedly expressed wishes to divide it fairly’ between her children. 

He added: ‘A lawyer would recognise her intentions as for the creation of a discretionary trust in favour of Tom and Henrietta, with Simon as trustee to act in accordance with her stated intentions.

‘The formalities would have fallen rather short, but there were no lawyers involved, which is part of the problem. The 2019 will does not, of course, achieve that intention because Simon, as executor, is trustee for himself and Hilary [Simon’s wife] alone.

‘I find that what Jo wanted to achieve was to secure the benefit of her estate for her children, apportioned to reflect their life-time gifts, and that that benefit and apportionment was to be entrusted to Simon to implement. Clearly, the 2019 will did not achieve that.

‘I have little hesitation in finding that Simon and Hilary have failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish that Jo when she signed the 2019 will understood: (a) what was in the 2019 will when she signed it; and (b) (more emphatically) what its effect would be.’