Mental Capacity to make a Gift – Common Law v Statute Tests – Testing Times

The case of Re Estate of Joyce Smith (deceased) in 2014 established that the legal test to be applied when assessing whether a person had mental capacity to make a gift, is not the test set out under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Similarly, the case of Walker v Badmin and Others in 2014 confirmed the Statute did not apply in cases as to the mental capacity to make a will.
Central to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is an assumption of capacity. Hence the onus of proof is on the person asserting incapacity to show that incapacity.
The common law test has always been somewhat more refined. The Courts when making a decision in retrospect, will often place the onus of proof on the person taking the benefit, hence reversing the assumption of capacity. If there is a sufficient suspicion around a gift or a will, the recipient of the assets has to prove capacity. In practice, this amounts to a significant change of emphasis.
The factors that the Court will take into account when accessing capacity are again different. Section 3(1) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 lays out the Mental Capacity Act as to capacity to:
(i)Â Â understand the information relevant to the decision;
(ii)Â retain that information;
(iii)Â use or weigh information as part of the process of making the decision; and
(iv)Â communicate their decision.
The test applied by the Court in relation to gifts and will is more complex. It places more emphasis on the person’s awareness of their family and community responsibilities. It also requires that a person is aware of the extent of their estate and of the full impact of the act. This means that the evidence needed to succeed in such a case is very different.
* Disclaimer: The information on the Anthony Gold website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. It is provided without any representations or warranties, express or implied.*
Please note
The information on the Anthony Gold website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. It is provided without any representations or warranties, expressed or implied.

Our Latest Family & Relationships Insights
- February 5, 2025
What happens to a gift when a cohabiting relationship breaks down?
- January 17, 2025
One Lawyer Two Clients; One Solution
- January 10, 2025
F v M & Ors [2024] EWFC 355 (B) : Section 91(14) Orders to Prevent Litigation Abuse and Coercive and Controlling Behaviour in Private Children Proceedings
- December 6, 2024
A Divorced Christmas Carol: A Story of Reflection and Change
- October 22, 2024
Is Court the Right Choice? Alternatives to Consider for Parents Facing the Family Court Backlog
- July 1, 2024
Foreign Divorce and Domicile: How can I get an English financial order if I live abroad?
Latest Articles
View allContact us today
"*" indicates required fields
Contact the commercial
& civil Dispute team today
"*" indicates required fields
Contact the Conveyancing team today
Contact the Conveyancing team today
Contact the Wills, Trusts
& Estates team today
Contact the Court of
Protection team today
Contact the Employment Law team today
Contact the Clinical Negligence team today
Contact the Family & Relationships team today
Contact the Personal Injury Claims team today
Contact the leasehold & Freehold team today
Contact the Corporate & Commercial team today
Contact the housing & disputes team
"*" indicates required fields