The Court of Session has approved a “scrap of paper” as being a valid will.

Under this document referred as the “November will”,  Margaret Watt (the deceased), disinherited her husband in favour of her daughter (the pursuer in this case) by her first marriage.  The deceased had handwritten the will 20 years ago in pencil on a single sheet of A5 size paper with several holes that rendered indecipherable much of the text, including the date.   The will was purported to have been witnessed by a Mrs Reid a former neighbour of the deceased.

It was common ground that the November will had been written and subscribed by the deceased and that it bore to have testamentary effect.   It was not accepted that the subscription had been on 16 November 2004.  It was not accepted that Mrs Reid had witnessed the deceased’s subscription.

Evidence was led that the deceased was unhappy with an earlier will referred to as the “October will” which was prepared by a professional will writer. The pursuer gave evidence that the deceased gave the November will to her in February 2005.

“The critical evidence came from the pursuer and Mrs Reid. If I accepted their evidence the pursuer’s case was made out. I should accept that they were credible and reliable witnesses on all material matters. In particular, there was no good reason to doubt Mrs Reid’s evidence. She was an independent witness. She had no reason to lie. There was simply no good basis for accepting the first defender’s contention that she was lying, had committed forgery, and had perjured herself in court.”

“Mrs Reid confirmed that the deceased subscribed the November will on 16 November 2004. She appended her signature as a witness at the same time. She gave her evidence clearly and in a straightforward manner. Her evidence emerged intact from cross-examination. Her reaction to the suggestion that she was not telling the truth was one of real and unaffected astonishment. The explanation which she gave for not agreeing to provide a precognition to the first defender’s solicitors also seemed to me to be genuine.”

“I accept the evidence of Mrs Reid as being credible and reliable. She is independent of the pursuer and the first defender. She has no financial interest in the outcome of the litigation. I formed a favourable impression of her in the witness box. There appears to me to be no good basis for treating her as being other than a law abiding and respectable individual. I reject the suggestions that she has acted in a partisan way, has lied, has colluded in the creation of a false document, and has perjured herself.”

“Without Mrs Reid’s evidence the damage to the document would have appeared to me to have been highly suspicious. With the benefit of her evidence I see matters in a very different light. Her evidence provides very substantial confirmation and support for the evidence of the pursuer. Mrs Reid’s evidence corroborates that the document was indeed signed by the deceased using her married name “Lennie” and that it was dated 16 November 2004. It also corroborates the pursuer’s evidence that the deceased was concerned that the October will might not adequately protect her children; and that securing that her children would be provided for was the motivation for making the November will.”

“I found the pursuer to be a credible witness. With certain qualifications, I also accept that her evidence was reliable.”

The full judgement can be found here.