As solicitors, we encourage people to make a professionally prepared will, to both accurately record your last wishes and to reduce the chance of a successful claim being advanced against your estate. If you do not leave a valid will, your estate will be administered in accordance with the intestacy rules. Many people are aware of this and therefore question the need to create a will if their wishes mirror the intestacy rules that will take effect.
The recent case of Packer v Packer [2025] reflects the problems with this approach. The facts are, as always in cases of this nature, desperately sad, not least because the claimant and defendant went from loving family members to adversaries in a short amount of time.
The case concerned the estate of Stephen Packer, who died in 2022, at the age of 65. He was survived by his wife, Debra Packer and sister, Lynn Packer.
Debra asserted that Stephen had died without making a will and that his estate should be administered in accordance with the intestacy rules. The court heard that Stephen was an introvert and was very frugal with money. Whilst Debra frequently encouraged him to make a will, he always refused on the basis that he wanted her to inherit his entire estate, and this would be the case under the intestacy rules (as they were married but had no children).
Whereas Lynn asserted that Stephen had a made a will, on 21 February 2022, in accordance with a draft will that she had prepared for him. This alleged will left some pecuniary legacies to Lynn’s children and split the remaining estate equally between herself and Debra.
Stephen and Debra’s house was searched, both in general and specifically in the locations in which Stephen stored important documentation (namely his wardrobe, behind the sofa and the boot of his car) but no will was found.
Before Stephen had died, Debra and Lynn seemingly had a very good relationship, both taking up the responsibility of caring for Stephen during his terminal illness. However, shortly after Stephen died, Debra took steps to try and administer the estate on the basis that she thought she was entitled to do so under the intestacy rules. Lynn took steps to frustrate the process, including entering a caveat that prevented letters of administration from being granted and then later alleging there was a will but could not provide a copy.
Initially Lynn claimed that Stephen told her that the will had been signed by independent witnesses. Whereas, at trial, Lynn asserted that the will had been signed by family members (her son and partner – who gave evidence on the point). She then she did some research and advised Stephen that he needed to get the will signed by independent witnesses and that he later told her that ‘it’s all sorted and done now.’
Where a will cannot be found, the presumption of revocation applies. Namely the testator is presumed to have intentionally destroyed the document. Therefore, the court had to determine the following issues:
The judge held that whilst it is likely that Stephen did sign the 2022 Will, he found it unlikely that Stephen proceeded to get it independently witnessed and rather, he concluded, when Lynn told Stephen that he needed to get the will independently witnessed, he decided not to proceed and destroyed it. Ultimately the court determined that the estate should be administered in accordance with the intestacy rules, thus making Debra the sole beneficiary of the estate.
These types of disputes easily escalate, and emotions can run high. The parties were unanimous that Stephen was against spending money on lawyers so the fact that significant costs would have been incurred taking this matter to trial is even more galling. The judge was sympathetic to both sides and, in fact, went so far as saying that ‘some of the difficulties have arisen from the uncertain state in which Stephen left his affairs.’
If you need advice regarding a possible claim against an estate, please contact our Contentious Trusts and Probate team for assistance.
The information on this site about legal matters is provided as a general guide only. Although we try to ensure that all of the information on this site is accurate and up to date, this cannot be guaranteed. The information on this site should not be relied upon or construed as constituting legal advice and Howes Percival LLP disclaims liability in relation to its use. You should seek appropriate legal advice before taking or refraining from taking any action.
To contact us, please fill out this form and we will get back in touch as soon as possible. Your personal data will be processed in accordance with our privacy policy which can be found here.
Thank you for your enquiry. We will respond as soon as possible.
