In a significant ruling, the High Court has upheld the validity of a will written on cardboard food packaging, allowing Diabetes UK to inherit an estate worth £180,000. The case of Malcolm Chenery’s unconventional will offers valuable insights into how courts approach the fundamental requirements of a will and what it means for a will to be valid.
The circumstances leading to this High Court decision are both extraordinary and instructive. Malcolm Chenery drafted his final testament across two pieces of cardboard packaging: the reverse of a Young’s frozen fish fillets box and a Mr Kipling mince pies box. His estate included a three-bedroom house in York, alongside cash, jewellery, and what the testator described in his own hand as “thousands of pieces” of ornaments and pottery.
The handwritten will reveals profound personal circumstances that influenced his intentions. Chenery wrote of being a “suffering loner with mental health issues” and expressed particular attachment to memories of York cricket ground, which he recalled as providing his happiest moments with his mother. These personal elements proved significant in establishing testamentary intention.
The crux of the legal challenge centred on the will’s unconventional format. Whilst neighbours had witnessed and signed the portion written on the mince pies box, they had not seen the fish fillets box containing crucial instructions regarding the house and contents. This raised a fundamental question about whether two separate pieces of cardboard could constitute a single valid will under the Wills Act 1837.
Sam Chandler, counsel for Diabetes UK, advanced several compelling arguments before Judge Katherine McQuail. Central to these submissions was evidence that both documents were written with the same pen, suggesting contemporaneous creation, and contained overlapping subject matter forming a coherent disposition. The court heard that the testator’s choice of beneficiary was influenced by diabetes affecting several family members.
Particular weight was given to the witnessing arrangements. The second page bore three signatures dated 3 May 2021, identified as “N. Walsh”, “J Carlton”, and initialled “KWN”. Whilst the witnesses confirmed they had not seen the first page when signing, counsel successfully argued that this did not invalidate the overall testament.
Judge McQuail’s judgment emphasised the long-established presumption against intestacy. Her Ladyship concluded that despite its unconventional medium, the will satisfied the formal requirements of the Wills Act 1837 and clearly expressed the testator’s intentions. The detailed nature of the instructions, which were written across the two boxes in the same pen, including specific provisions about his dog Tilly and wishes for his ashes to be scattered at York cricket ground, supported this conclusion.
The judgment offers important guidance on the courts’ approach to informal wills. Whilst the law maintains strict requirements regarding execution, judges will look beyond mere formalities to uphold clearly expressed testamentary intentions where possible. However, practitioners should note that the successful outcome required significant legal resources to establish validity.
Several potential grounds for challenge were present: the separation of the will across two documents, incomplete witness attestation, questions of testamentary capacity given the testator’s disclosed mental health issues, and interpretation difficulties arising from informal language. That these hurdles were overcome should not encourage reliance on homemade wills. The Chenery draws interesting parallels with other decisions where courts have upheld unconventional will formats. However, it reinforces the principle that whilst courts will strive to give effect to testamentary intentions, informal will-making creates substantial risks of costly contentious probate proceedings.
For solicitors advising clients facing similar inheritance disputes, the Chenery decision provides valuable precedent regarding the courts’ approach to informal wills. Key considerations include:
- The materiality of witness attestation to only part of a multi-page will
- The significance of evidence supporting testamentary intention
- The weight given to family support for unusual dispositions
- The courts’ willingness to look beyond formal defects where clear intentions exist
Early legal intervention remains crucial in navigating complex probate issues and protecting testamentary intentions. At C-PAID, our expert contentious probate team has extensive experience handling cases involving challenged wills, including those with unusual formats or execution issues similar to the Chenery case. We understand the complexities involved in such cases and offer genuine No Win No Fee arrangements to help beneficiaries secure their rightful inheritance.
The Chenery case demonstrates why C-PAID’s specialist expertise in contentious probate matters is so valuable. Our team can quickly identify the key legal issues in unusual will cases and develop effective strategies to protect our clients’ interests. Whether you’re facing challenges to a will’s validity or seeking to establish your inheritance rights, C-PAID’s dedicated contentious probate solicitors can provide the expert guidance needed to navigate these complex legal waters.
Whilst the Chenery will was ultimately upheld, the case serves as a compelling reminder of the importance of proper legal advice in estate planning. The costs and uncertainty of contentious probate proceedings typically far exceed those of professional will-writing services. If you’re facing an inheritance dispute involving an unusual or challenged will, contact C-PAID today to discuss how our experienced team can help protect your interests on a No Win No Fee basis.
