Banks v Goodfellow is a legal case in English and Welsh law that provides the test for Testamentary Capacity – the test for capacity in making a will. It is a sad story thats sadness is exacerbated by the awful way in which we treated people with mental illness in Victorian Britain compared with how we do today.
The Facts
John Banks was a wealthy landlord. He had historically suffered with his mental health and had been committed to a lunatic asylum in the past. By modern standards, it is likely that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. He suffered from delusions of being haunted by spirits and demons. He was also fixated on a local man by the name of Featherstone Alexander. He was paranoid that Mr Alexander was out to get him and became very aggressive when his name was mentioned. Mr Alexander died around 5 years before John Banks died, but his paranoia about Mr Alexander continued regardless. He also suffered from epilepsy, which was recorded in his death certificate as being the cause of death.
Mr Banks had originally made a will in which he had left everything to his sister, Margaret Banks. Margaret married a man named Thomas Goodfellow and went on to have a daughter, also named Margaret. She sadly died not long after giving birth to her. Thomas Goodfellow would later remarry and have a son, who would eventually be the defendant in this case.
Many years after his sister’s death, John Banks rewrote his will in favour of his niece, Margaret. Neither he or the will writer seemed to have given any consideration to the consequences of Margaret dying young, and this is exactly what happened. Margaret sadly died of tuberculosis 2 years after Mr Banks. She was just 20, unmarried and with no children of her own. As a result of this, the estate of Mr Banks passed to the estate of Margaret, and Margaret’s estate would be distributed under the rules of intestacy– the rules that decide how someone’s possessions will be distributed when they pass away without a will. This meant that everything would pass to Margaret’s younger half-brother, who wasn’t related to John Banks in any way at all.
The Case
John Banks had a half-brother, Jacob Banks. Jacob Banks had a son, also called John. Jacob had passed away already. John Jr made a claim to test the validity of the will that had been made in favour of Margaret Goodfellow (Junior). John Banks Sr had spent time in a lunatic asylum, was certified insane and therefore could not possibly have had the capacity to make a will – in John Jr’s opinion at least.
The jury found in favour of Mr Goodfellow and found that John Banks knew what he was doing and was free from delusions at the time he made the will.
John Jr then appealed on the grounds that the original judge had misdirected the jury and that the verdict had been reached against the weight of evidence supporting John Jr’s claim.
John Jr’s argument was that the solicitor who wrote the will should have questioned him about Featherstone Alexander, knowing that this would have sent John Sr into a violent rage, and thus proving that he was not of sound mind and did not have capacity to make a will.
The Judgement
Presiding over the appeal was Sir Alexander Cockburn. He held that the direction to the jury by the first judge had been correct. He held that it did not matter whether the delusions were there or not at the time that John Sr made the will, because they had absolutely no bearing on how he planned to dispose of his property. His anger towards the late Featherstone Alexander, whether delusional or irrational or neither, had no impact on his decision to dispose of his property to Margaret Goodfellow. As such, Sir Cockburn upheld the first judgment and again found in favour of Mr Goodfellow.
The Test for Capacity
As already stated in the opening paragraph of this article, this case established the test for testamentary capacity, and it remains good law 150 years on. Below is a summary of the test, and also how it related to the case of Mr Banks.
The case established a 4 stage test:
- The testator must understand and appreciate the nature of the will and the consequences of its instructions.
- The testator must understand the extent of the property that they are gifting.
- The testator must be aware of other people who would have a valid claim to the estate.
- The testator must be free of any mental delusions that impact decisions on how to distribute the estate.
1. Understanding and Appreciating the Nature and Effect of the Will
It was clear that John Banks understood that he was leaving all of his assets to his niece. He instructed a solicitor to draft his will for him. The solicitor who drafted the will also stated he was quite clear that he wished to leave everything to his niece – he clearly knew what he was doing, what a will was, and what this particular will would do.
2. Understanding the Extent of Property
John Banks owned an extensive portfolio of properties. The solicitor who was instructed to draft the will was brought to John Banks by the man who he used to collect the rent of his many properties. The solicitor was also instructed by John Banks to draft a lease agreement for his rent collector on one of those properties at the same meeting he was instructed to draft the new will. John Banks clearly understood that he owned multiple properties and was also intellectually articulate enough to oversee dealings involved in those properties.
3. Awareness of Other Claimants
The material on the case does not really state too much about John Banks’ relationship with his half brother or the nephew, John Jr. Indeed, if the Inheritance (Provision For Family and Dependants) Act 1975 had been in enactment at the time of this case, it would be hard to establish that John Jr was in any way someone that should be entitled to make a claim for such provision. Margaret the niece lived with John Banks probably because they were dependent on each other; she being an unmarried minor and him having mental health issues. But it is also likely because they were each other’s closest living relative, the closest thing maybe he had to a daughter of his own. She was by and large the most obvious beneficiary.
4. Free from Delusions
We know from what has been stated above that John Banks suffered terribly with his mental health. But it was clear that, not only was he free from delusions at the time he made the will, any delusions that he suffered from would have had no impact on the way he wrote his will anyway.
In Conclusion
This may be a very old case, but it continues to be good law. This is in spite of the introduction of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. There has been much debate in the last 2 decades over whether MCA 2005 should replace Banks v Goodfellow. But in my opinion, MCA 2005 simply reinforces Banks v Goodfellow by stating more or less the same elements albeit in a contemporary manner.