Knowledge

Introduction

Jersey's Royal Court (the "Court") has issued a useful judgment at the intersection of capacity and succession law, clarifying that consistency, clarity and a clear declaration will be key considerations when determining whether to authorise the oral revocation of a valid will.

Jersey is one of the few jurisdictions with a legal pathway to oral revocation of a will – the case of In the matter of F (Capacity) [2026] JRC 199 is a significant decision concerning an application to the Court in respect of a person who had lost testamentary capacity and whether their Will ought to be revoked.

The case concerned an 80-year-old man ("F") with dementia. He had made a valid will in 2018 leaving his entire movable estate to a woman who had cared for him for many years ("G"). Following a serious breakdown in their relationship, F repeatedly and consistently expressed the wish that G should no longer inherit from him. However, by the time those wishes crystallised, he lacked capacity to revoke or remake his will himself.

The Court ultimately held that it was in F's best interests for his will to be revoked, notwithstanding the evident kindness and years of care provided by G. The Court authorised the Viscount, acting as delegate, to take the necessary steps to revoke the will.

The judgment is important for:

• the role of a person's wishes and feelings in best interests decisions;
• the interaction between testamentary freedom and the Capacity and Self-Determination (Jersey) Law 2016 (the "Capacity Law");
• the Court's jurisdiction under Article 24 of the Capacity Law;
• the distinction between revoking a will and making a new statutory will; and
• the weight to be given to consistent wishes expressed by a person with declining capacity.

The facts

At its heart, the case is about the collapse of a longstanding relationship. F had no spouse or children and lived as a lodger in G's late mother's home for about ten years, during which time she acted as an unpaid carer, and spent her own money furnishing accommodation for him. For many years he appears to have enjoyed a close relationship with G, who wanted her (and not his estranged family) to inherit his estate, and appoint her as his attorney under a lasting power of attorney ("LPA") in 2020.

G's evidence painted the picture of a devoted friend and carer. She said F had been adamant in 2018 that he did not want his brother or wider family to inherit because he had been out of contact with them for more than forty years. However, the relationship eventually deteriorated.

The turning point appears to have been a dispute in 2024 concerning G's management of F's finances under the LPA. Following that disagreement, F became distressed, sought to remove G as his attorney and regain control of his affairs, and stated repeatedly that he no longer wanted G to inherit his estate.

Those wishes remained remarkably consistent, even as his dementia progressed. What changed was not his wish to exclude G, but who he wanted to benefit instead. At different times he suggested:

• the care home;
• his brother;
• his nephews; and
• the JSPCA.

The Court considered this distinction critical. His wishes about replacement beneficiaries fluctuated. His wish that G should not inherit did not. The judgment demonstrates the Court's attempt to respect the autonomy and dignity of a vulnerable individual even when his capacity had deteriorated significantly.

Key legal principles

Jersey customary law permits oral revocation of a will

The Court reaffirmed the principle in Re Joan Webb [2019] JRC 080, accepting that, under Jersey law, revocation requires both an intention to revoke (animus revocandi) and an act of revocation.

An oral declaration made before a witness can constitute an act of revocation provided it:

• is clear;
• is unambiguous;
• is expressed in absolute terms;
• takes immediate effect; and
• is accompanied by an intention to revoke.

Practical point

Jersey remains unusual in recognising oral revocation. The Court reiterated Commissioner Clyde-Smith's warning that oral revocation is:

• inherently uncertain;
• difficult to prove;
• a fertile source of litigation; and
• generally unsatisfactory from an evidential perspective.

The Court's jurisdiction derived from Article 24, not Article 28

Article 28 of the Capacity Law concerns the making of a will for a person lacking capacity. The Court emphasised that it was not being asked to make a will. Instead, it was being asked only to authorise revocation and so Article 24(1)(c) applied, whereby the Court may make a declaration regarding "the lawfulness of any act done, or proposed to be done". The relevant act was revoking F's existing will through the Viscount acting on his behalf.

Best interests are interpreted broadly

The Court relied heavily upon:

• Re D (Capacity) [2024] JRC 125; and
• An NHS Trust v MB [2006] EWHC 507 (Fam).

The Court repeated Holman J's observation (from An NHS Trust) that "Best interests are used in the widest sense and include every kind of consideration capable of impacting on the decision."

The practical implication is that best interests extend beyond medical interests, financial interests or physical welfare, but also include: emotional welfare; dignity; personal values; previously expressed wishes; relationships; and psychological wellbeing.

Consistency may be more important than precision

F was inconsistent regarding who should inherit. However, he was entirely consistent that G should not inherit. The Court regarded that consistency as highly significant in attaching weight to his wishes and feelings. This is a useful practical principle for capacity practitioners. Where a person cannot articulate a complete solution, a consistently expressed objection may still carry substantial weight.

Why the Court approved revocation

The decisive factors were that:

• F had repeatedly expressed a wish to revoke the will;
• those wishes had been expressed over a prolonged period;
• the wishes were unambiguous;
• the wishes were consistently maintained;
• failure to revoke was causing distress;
• the Viscount considered revocation to be in F's best interests; and
• persons involved in F's care corroborated his wishes.

Balanced against that were:

• G's longstanding care and support;
• the fact that she was originally chosen by F; and
• uncertainty about who should ultimately inherit.

On balance, the Court considered that respect for F's persistent wishes outweighed those concerns.

Key takeaway

Whilst wishes and feelings may be determinative where they are expressed consistently, best interests decision-making remains a broad evaluative exercise. Revocation and statutory will applications should be analysed separately.