CONTESTING A WILL WITH WILLCLAIM SOLICITORS NO WIN NO FEE SPECIALISTS – PACKER V PACKER AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A WILL CANNOT BE FOUND

5 May 2025 9:27 am

Will claim Solicitors, specialist no win no fee will dispute and will contest Solicitors, explain what is likely to happen if a Will (thought to exist at the time of death or before) cannot be found

Introduction
The High Court’s decision in Packer v Packer [2025] EWHC 461 (Ch) offers essential guidance for anyone involved in a will dispute, inheritance claim, or will contest claim — particularly where a will is alleged to exist but cannot be found, and it is unclear whether it was validly executed. This case centres on a conflict between family members over whether a missing will had any legal force, and whether the rules of intestacy should apply instead.

Here is a link to the actual Judgment:
Packer v Packer (Re Estate of Stephen George Packer) [2025] EWHC 461 (Ch) (28 February 2025)

The Facts of the Case
The facts of this case concern a dispute regarding the Estate of Stephen George Packer (“Stephen”), between Debra Packer, the Claimant and widow of the Deceased (“Debra”), and Lynn Packer, the Defendant and sister of the Deceased (“Lynn”). Stephen and Debra had no children, and so Debra would inherit Stephen’s Estate in accordance with the intestacy rules.

It was Debra’s case that Stephen died intestate, while Lynn argued that Stephen made two Wills, one in 2017 and one in 2022, appointing her as executrix and a beneficiary. However, neither the original wills nor signed copies could be located. At trial, both parties accepted that the 2017 Will was likely never executed, so the case focused solely on the validity of the purported 2022 Will.

Key Legal Issues
The court had to determine three central questions:
1. Was a draft Will created by Lynn on the instruction of Stephen in the form of the 2022 Will?
2. If so, was the 2022 Will executed in accordance with section 9 of the Wills Act 1837?
3. If so, was the presumption of revocation rebutted despite the original not being found after death?

Issue 1: Stephen’s Intention to Make a Will
The judge found that Stephen showed reluctance to formalise his testamentary wishes, despite encouragement from Debra and Lynn. His medical notes in January 2022 mentioned he might make a will ‘at some point’. Although Lynn drafted a 2022 Will, the judge was not satisfied that it accurately reflected Stephen’s intentions. He concluded Stephen’s ultimate wish was to die intestate.

Issue 2: Execution of the 2022 Will
Lynn’s evidence regarding the execution of the 2022 Will changed significantly over time. Initially vague, she later claimed the Will was signed in front of her partner and son. However, the court found inconsistencies in her testimony and in the statements given by the witnesses. The judge ultimately held that the Will had not been validly executed in accordance with section 9 of the Wills Act 1837.

Issue 3: Presumption of Revocation
Although the case was disposed of on the issue of execution, the judge explored whether, if it had been signed, the 2022 Will had been revoked. He found that the most likely scenario was that Stephen had destroyed the Will himself, preferring to let the rules of intestacy apply. Given his personality, the judge considered this to be the most likely course that Stephen would have taken.

Final Judgment and Lessons Learned
The judge favoured Debra’s evidence and pronounced against the validity of the 2022 Will, granting Letters of Administration to Debra.

This case demonstrates that where there is uncertainty about testamentary intentions and no executed will is found, the burden lies on the person seeking to prove the will. Because the testator is no longer alive to clarify their wishes, the court must rely on secondary evidence, which is often inconsistent or incomplete. Lynn’s evidence (and that of her partner and son) carried very little weight and had attached to it a good deal of suspicion given a conclusion the 2022 Will had been properly executed and existed at the date of death would have benefited them all financially. Naturally then the Court was reluctant to accept her evidence and those closely associated with her.

Once again, this case highlights the inherent danger of a trial – in general the losing party pays his or her own costs and the costs of the winner:
THE INHERENT DANGER OF A TRIAL – Will Claim Solicitors

Practical Takeaways for Will Disputes

Always ensure a will is validly executed under the Wills Act 1837.
Store wills securely and inform trusted individuals of their location.
Be cautious of relying on draft documents or informal expressions of intent.
Seek early legal advice in will disputes — had Lynn done so, this case may have settled earlier, avoiding the costs and stress of trial.

If you consider any of these facts and matters are of interest, are likely to apply to you, or you would like to ask us for more information about our no win no fee arrangement, or you simply want us to assess your claim, then please do not hesitate to contact us for a confidential no strings chat and/or visit us at www.willclaim.com.

We provide details about our no win no fee arrangements at https://www.willclaim.com/no-win-no-fee/.