bars

CONTESTING A WILL WITH WILLCLAIM SOLICITORS NO WIN NO FEE SPECIALISTS –  JENKINS AND VOOGHT V EVANS, HOW A WILL CHALLENGE CAN TURN INTO A FINANCIAL DISASTER 

Will claim Solicitors, specialist no win no fee will dispute and will contest Solicitors consider the new case Jenkins and Vooght v Evans [2025] EWHC 2438 (Ch) which shows how a Will challenge or Will contest dispute can turn into a financial disaster 

Jenkins and Vooght v Evans [2025]: A Costly Lesson in How to Contest a Will 

When families fall out over a will, emotions often outweigh economics. The High Court’s decision in Jenkins and Vooght v Evans [2025] EWHC 2438 (Ch) is a striking reminder that bringing a will claim or estate dispute without strong evidence can have severe financial consequences. 

Here, the defendant’s personal financial stake in the outcome was modest — worth only £11,500 — yet she risked, and likely incurred, exposure to tens of thousands of pounds in legal costs. 

A link to the actual decision follows: 
Jenkins & Anor v Evans [2025] EWHC 2438 (Ch) (03 October 2025) 

Background to the Will Dispute 
The late Robert Glyn Evans died in January 2021, leaving two adult children, Caroline Evans and Nicholas Evans. Both were principal beneficiaries under his 2006 and 2017 wills. 

Caroline launched a will contest against the 2017 will, claiming her father lacked capacity, did not understand what he was signing, and had been unduly influenced. The executors, Andrew Jenkins and Jennifer Vooght of Wansbroughs solicitors, applied to have the 2017 will proved in solemn form. 

Although the residuary division of the estate between the two children was unchanged, Caroline objected to her father’s decision to appoint professional executors — and to include small new cash legacies totalling just £23,000. That amount represented the entire monetary difference between the 2006 and 2017 wills (ignoring executorship), making this a financially minimal but emotionally charged estate dispute. 

The Two Wills Compared 

2006 Will

  • Executors: Caroline Evans and Nicholas Evans. 
  • Estate divided equally between Caroline and Nicholas. 

2017 Will 

  • Executors: Andrew Jenkins and another Wansbroughs partner. 
  • Pecuniary legacies: 
    – £1,000 each to the housekeeper, Bishop Wordsworth’s Grammar School, and the local parish church. 
    – £10,000 each to Mr Evans’s two grandsons.
  • Residue divided equally between Caroline and Nicholas. 

The 2017 will thus introduced modest charitable and family gifts and replaced family executors with professionals — a rational decision for a testator seeking independence and peace between his children. 

Grounds of the Will Claim 

Caroline’s challenge was based on three familiar grounds, common in will disputes and estate claims: 

  1. Lack of testamentary capacity under Banks v Goodfellow (1870). 
  2. Lack of knowledge and approval of the will’s contents. 
  3. Undue influence, allegedly by Mr Jenkins. 

Legal Principles Reaffirmed 

1. Testamentary Capacity 
Applying Banks v Goodfellow, the court held that a testator must understand the act of making a will, the extent of their estate, and the claims of potential beneficiaries. 
Medical evidence showed Mr Evans was cognitively sound and fully understood the effect of the changes. 

2. Knowledge and Approval 
The will had been prepared and executed under solicitor supervision, with detailed attendance notes confirming his reasoning. The “golden rule” of obtaining a medical opinion for elderly testators was not followed — but the judge reiterated that it is a matter of good practice, not legal requirement. 

3. Undue Influence 
The court rejected any suggestion of coercion. Mr Evans had sound reasons for appointing professionals and making modest gifts — an arrangement entirely consistent with independence and family fairness. 

The Decision 

HHJ Russen KC held that the 2017 will was valid. Mr Evans had: 

  • Full testamentary capacity; 
  • Clear knowledge and approval; and 
  • Acted freely and without influence. 

Caroline’s will claim was dismissed. 
The judgment noted that her grievance was essentially about being removed as executor, not the fairness of the will. Given that her financial interest was limited to £11,500, the court’s likely costs order against her will far exceed that sum — turning what began as a modest estate dispute into a potential financial disaster. 

Why This Case Matters for Will Claims and Estate Disputes 
This case is a textbook example of how a small inheritance dispute can spiral into major financial risk. 

This case is a textbook example of how a small inheritance dispute can spiral into major financial risk. 

It reinforces several key lessons for those considering how to contest a will: 

  • Evidence is everything. Courts require clear proof of incapacity or undue influence — suspicion alone is not enough. 
  • The “golden rule” is not a rule of law. Failure to obtain medical evidence does not automatically invalidate a will. 
  • Professional executors are not a red flag where the reasons are well-documented. 
  • Costs can be devastating. When the value of the disputed gifts is outweighed by potential legal costs, litigating a will contest becomes economically irrational. It is simply wrong to expect the estate to pick up all of the costs in cases of this nature unless it can be shown that the testator (the deceased) was the cause of it. Our earlier blog on costs follows: 3 Ways to Keep Costs Low in a Will Dispute – Will Claim Solicitors 

How to Contest or Dispute a Will Sensibly 

Anyone contemplating a will dispute or estate claim should first evaluate the financial realities. The process can be complex and costly, and success depends on strong, contemporaneous evidence — medical reports, solicitor attendance notes, and witness statements. 

If you believe a will is invalid, take early legal advice. A specialist solicitor can assess whether you have a viable will contest based on lack of capacity, undue influence, or procedural irregularities — and help you avoid the kind of financial risks that played out in Jenkins and Vooght v Evans. 

Key Takeaway 
The court upheld the 2017 will as a rational, solicitor-supervised document. For Caroline Evans, the £11,500 difference between the two wills may now pale beside a substantial costs liability. 

Jenkins and Vooght v Evans [2025] serves as a sobering reminder that while anyone can bring a will claim, not every claim is worth the fight — especially when emotion overtakes economics. 

How Will Claim Can Help 
At Will Claim Solicitors, we specialise in contesting wills, will disputes, and inheritance claims on a no win, no fee basis. If you suspect a loved one was pressured into making a will, we can: 

  • Review the circumstances and available evidence. 
  • Advise whether you have grounds to dispute the will. 
  • Guide you through the legal process to protect your inheritance rights. 

Visit us at www.willclaim.com 

We provide details about our no win no fee arrangements at No Win No Fee Solicitors – Will Claim Solicitors 

cross