Next in our series of ebriefings on the Government’s Green Paper: Transforming public procurement; looking at the Chapter 4 proposal to change the basis of contract awards.
In order for a Will to be valid the testator must have the necessary mental capacity to make the will. It is important to be clear though, that simply because a person has been given a diagnosis such as dementia, it does not mean that they will lack the necessary understanding to make their own will.
The Mental Capacity Act (“MCA”) came into force on 1st October 2007. This sets out important principles affecting how we should approach decision making with a person with impaired capacity. Interesting though, it does not apply when capacity to make a Will needs to be determined.
Instead the relevant test is still that outlined in the case of Banks v Goodfellow (1870), which in summary requires the testator to:
- Understand the nature of the act (sound mind), so understand that he/she is making a Will and its effects:
- understand the extent of the property being disposed of (sound memory);
- be able to comprehend and appreciate the claims to which he/she ought to give effect (sound understanding); and
- this understanding must not be impaired by any disorder of the mind or delusions.
If the testator is elderly or ill or there are any doubts about their capacity then case law has established that practitioners should obtain an assessment of capacity from a medical practitioner. This practice is known as the “Golden Rule”.
The Law Commission Report on Wills published on 13th July 2017 recommended changing the test for testamentary capacity to take into account “the modern understanding of conditions like dementia”. One proposal is to replace the Banks v Goodfellow test with the current MCA test which is outlined in Sections 1 to 3 of the MCA. Section 2(1) sets out the definition of a person lacking capacity as:
[..] a person lacks capacity in relation to a matter if at the material time he is unable to make a decision for himself in relation to the matter because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain.
There are two sections to this test, the inability to make the decision (the functional test) and the impairment or disturbance of the mind or brain (the diagnostic test). Case law has decided that the functional test should be considered first. The MCA test of capacity is also decision and time specific.
So applying this to the decision to make a Will (and the decision as to who can benefit under your Will), the first consideration will be whether the testator is unable to make a decision for him or herself. Section 3(1) outlines the circumstances in which a person is unable to make a decision:
[…] a person is unable to make a decision for himself if he is unable:
(a) to understand the information relevant to the decision;
(b) to retain that information;
(c) to use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision; or
(d) to communicate his decision (whether by talking, using sign language or any other means).
Then secondly, if following the above it is considered that the testator is unable to make the decision to make a Will, or decide who should benefit from his estate, consideration will need to be given as to whether the inability to make the decision is because of an impairment of or a disturbance in the functioning of, his or her mind and brain.
The Banks v Goodfellow test is well known and understood by practitioners and has been applied successfully for a great many years. The Law Commission report cites ambiguities regarding the relationship between part 3 and 4 of the test and developments in recent case law which make the test unclear. However the predominant reason is the question as to whether the test is now is appropriate given developments in medicine since 1870. They state that “[..] the test does not reflect the significance of dementia in the context of assessments of capacity”.
The Banks v Goodfellow test and the MCA test are similar, and it is likely that the same result will be achieved if both tests are applied in most cases.
One important difference however is the need to apply principles set out in sections 1 and 2 of the MCA when assessing capacity. Under Section 1(2) a person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that he or she does not. There is therefore a presumption of capacity. It will be interesting to see how this presumption impacts on the “Golden Rule”.
A key advantage of adopting the MCA test is that one test would apply to all decisions. The medical profession are becoming increasingly familiar with the MCA test, which may result in a greater willingness of the profession to undertake testamentary capacity assessments, the assessments more straightforward, and arguably create more certainty and confidence in a capacity determination.
The rules, which have been in place since the 19th Century are undergoing a thorough review, and a review which many would argue is long overdue.
The Law Commission consultation can be found here. It closes on 10th November 2017.
For more information
For more information on making your will, please contact Lisa Whitehouse.
The Academies Financial Handbook is updated annually by the Department for Education and the Education and Skills Funding Agency; it contains a number of governance requirements for academy trusts.
Supreme Court publishes key decision for those working in the UK’s gig economy.
The 'Chocolate Snowman Appeal' is an amazing initiative that Anthony Collins Solicitors' (ACS) employees take part in every year.
The Building Safety Bill (the Bill) is said to be the most significant and wide-ranging change to the regulatory environment for higher risk building (HRBs) for over 45 years.
On 4 November 2020, the Restriction of Public Exit Payments Regulations 2020 (the Regulations) came into force; exit payments for the public sector were capped at £95,000.
The case was brought by the Official Receiver who sought disqualification orders under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA 1986) against the seven trustees of Kids Company and its CEO. It illustrates well the tension between the role of a fulltime paid CEO of a large charity and the role of its board as voluntary trustees/directors.
At the end of 2020, The Charity Governance Code was updated or 'refreshed' as it is termed on its website.
Anthony Collins Solicitors is today (Thursday 11 February) revealing the scale of its social impact during 2020.
In their first podcast of this series, current and future trainees will discuss their journey and route to securing a training contract at Anthony Collins Solicitors.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.