Knowledge and Approval of a Will UK (2026): The Second Test for a Valid Will and How It Differs from Testamentary Capacity

For a will to be valid in England and Wales, the testator must both have testamentary capacity AND know and approve the contents of the will at the time of execution. These are two distinct legal requirements: (1) TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY (the Banks v Goodfellow test, 1870): the testator must: (a) understand the nature of making a will and its effects; (b) understand the extent of the property they are disposing of; (c) comprehend and appreciate the claims of those who might expect to benefit; (d) not be suffering from any disorder of the mind that poisons their affections or perverts their sense of right. A person can have testamentary capacity but still not know and approve a specific will's contents; (2) KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL: even a person with full testamentary capacity must, at the time they execute the will, actually know what the will contains and approve those contents. They must understand: (a) what the document is (a will); (b) what it says (its specific provisions, who gets what); (c) they are approving those provisions as reflecting their wishes. A testator who signs a will prepared by a solicitor based on instructions does know and approve its contents (assuming they reviewed it or it was read to them). A testator who signs without reading, without having it explained, or under circumstances creating doubt may not know and approve; (3) WHY THE DISTINCTION MATTERS IN PRACTICE: capacity and knowledge/approval can fail separately: (a) A person with full capacity can sign a will they have not read and do not know the contents of, no knowledge and approval; (b) A person who lacks full testamentary capacity may in some circumstances still know and approve a limited will (though this is unusual and contentious); (c) A will prepared by a beneficiary, or one that differs materially from what the testator instructed, may fail for want of knowledge and approval even though the testator had capacity; (4) THE LEGAL AUTHORITIES: the knowledge and approval doctrine is confirmed in: Fulton v Andrew (1875); Barry v Butlin (1838); Gill v Woodall [2010] EWCA Civ 1430; Fuller v Strum [2001] EWCA Civ 1879. The requirement is now part of the standard validity framework applied by contentious probate courts; (5) PRACTICAL IMPLICATION FOR WILL DRAFTING: the requirement explains why solicitors read wills aloud to testators before execution, or at least ask the testator to confirm they have read and understood the will. A well-drafted attendance note by the solicitor confirming the testator read the will and was satisfied with its contents provides strong evidence of knowledge and approval.

The suspicious circumstances doctrine provides that in certain situations, the burden of proving knowledge and approval falls on the person propounding (putting forward) the will, rather than on the challenger: (1) THE DEFAULT POSITION: ordinarily, when a challenge is brought against a will, the party challenging it bears the burden of proving that the testator did NOT know and approve its contents. The will comes before the court with a presumption of validity once capacity and due execution are established; (2) SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES REVERSES THE BURDEN: if the surrounding circumstances of the will's preparation or execution raise a suspicion that the testator may not have known and approved the contents, the court may require the person propounding the will to prove knowledge and approval affirmatively. This was established in Barry v Butlin (1838) and confirmed in subsequent cases; (3) WHAT COUNTS AS 'SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES': (a) The will was prepared by or at the direction of a beneficiary who stands to gain substantially under it; (b) The beneficiary is in a position of trust or influence over the testator (carer; solicitor; family member in a dominant position); (c) The will departs substantially from earlier testamentary intentions without explanation; (d) The testator had limited literacy, language skills, or cognitive ability and the will is complex; (e) The will was executed in unusual haste or secrecy; (f) The professional who prepared the will is also a beneficiary; (4) THE RULE IN FULLER V STRUM: in Fuller v Strum [2001], the Court of Appeal confirmed that where suspicious circumstances are present, the court can only act on affirmative evidence that the testator knew and approved the contents. The key question is whether, given all the circumstances, the court can be satisfied that the will represents the testator's real intentions; (5) WHAT EVIDENCE SATISFIES THE COURT: (a) Attendance notes by the solicitor showing the will was read to and approved by the testator; (b) Medical evidence that the testator had full mental function at the time; (c) Evidence that the testator gave original, independent instructions for the will's contents; (d) Confirmation from a witness who observed the testator reading the will and expressing satisfaction; (e) Correspondence between the testator and the solicitor showing their evolving instructions; (6) IN GILL V WOODALL [2010]: the Court of Appeal held that a mother's will leaving everything to charity (rather than to her daughter as previously expected) could be challenged on the basis that the testator, who had agoraphobia and did not attend the signing in person, may not have known and approved the charity provision. The case is important for showing that seemingly 'unusual' gifts raise legitimate questions about knowledge and approval.

Testators who cannot read the will themselves face specific requirements to establish knowledge and approval: (1) BLIND TESTATORS: a blind testator cannot read the will and therefore cannot know its contents from personal reading. The standard practice is: (a) the will is read aloud to the testator by the solicitor or a disinterested person in the presence of the witnesses; (b) the attestation clause should state that the will was read aloud to the testator, who appeared to understand it and expressed satisfaction; (c) an attestation clause stating this provides prima facie evidence of knowledge and approval for a blind testator. Without such a clause, the court will be more willing to find that knowledge and approval has not been established; (2) ILLITERATE OR LOW-LITERACY TESTATORS: the same principles apply. The will should be read aloud and the reading should be noted in the attestation clause. A testator who cannot read but understands spoken English needs the will read to them. A testator who does not understand English at all needs a competent interpreter, the interpreter explains the will's provisions in a language the testator understands; (3) FOREIGN LANGUAGE TESTATORS: for testators who do not read or speak English, the will should be translated in full and read to them in their own language. The attestation clause should record: (a) that the testator does not read English; (b) that the will was interpreted and read to them; (c) that the testator appeared to understand and approved the contents. The same principles were applied in Perrins v Holland [2010] (discussed below); (4) TESTATORS WITH COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT: for testators with dementia or other cognitive impairment, knowledge and approval is closely linked with capacity, if the testator could not process and retain the information in the will (even if it was read to them), there may be no knowledge and approval regardless of the reading. Medical evidence and careful attendance notes are critical; (5) THE PRACTICE RULE FOR SOLICITORS: the Law Society and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) recommend that solicitors: (a) always read the will to the testator at the execution meeting; (b) confirm in the attendance note that the testator confirmed they had read (or had read to them) and approved the will; (c) for testators with communication difficulties, adapt the approach and note adaptations made. This good practice protects against future knowledge and approval challenges; (6) PERRINS V HOLLAND [2010] EWCA CIV 840: in this case, a testator who was severely deaf and unable to read or write signed a will. The Court of Appeal held that even with severe physical limitations, knowledge and approval could be established if the testator had the mental faculties to understand the will's effect when it was communicated to him in the appropriate way.

Knowledge and approval challenges (also called 'want of knowledge and approval' challenges) are brought as contentious probate claims but differ from capacity challenges in important ways: (1) WHERE THE CHALLENGE IS BROUGHT: contentious probate claims challenging knowledge and approval are issued in the Probate Registry and transferred to the Chancery Division of the High Court (or the County Court for smaller estates). The claim is a probate action, the claimant typically seeks revocation of any grant of probate that has been made and a declaration that the will is invalid; (2) THE GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE, HOW THEY DIFFER: (a) Capacity challenge: the testator did not, at the time of execution, have sufficient mental capacity under the Banks v Goodfellow test. This typically involves psychiatric or medical evidence about the testator's mental state. It is a 'binary' test, did they have capacity or not? (b) Knowledge and approval challenge: the testator DID have capacity but did NOT know and approve the contents. This focuses on the circumstances of the will's preparation and execution, who drafted it, who was present, how instructions were given, whether the will was read and understood; (3) EVIDENTIAL FOCUS: capacity challenge: medical records; consultant psychiatrist evidence; GP notes; witness evidence of confusion or delusion. Knowledge and approval challenge: solicitor's attendance notes; draft will correspondence; witness evidence of the circumstances of execution; beneficiary influence evidence; evidence of departure from earlier instructions; (4) WHO BRINGS KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL CLAIMS: (a) disappointed beneficiaries who expected to inherit but have been left out of the will; (b) family members who suspect a beneficiary (often an in-home carer or a family member who organised the will) manipulated the testator; (c) often combined with an undue influence claim, if someone manipulated the testator to sign a will they did not truly approve; (5) THE COMBINED CHALLENGE: in practice, contentious probate claims often combine multiple grounds: (a) lack of testamentary capacity; (b) want of knowledge and approval; (c) undue influence or fraud. The claimant argues that if capacity is found, then in any event there was no knowledge and approval; and if there was knowledge and approval, then in any event there was undue influence. Courts deal with each ground separately; (6) COSTS IN CONTENTIOUS PROBATE: the general rule (costs follow the event) applies but with estate costs exceptions. If the grounds of challenge were reasonable (i.e., the challenger had proper cause), costs may be paid from the estate even if the challenge fails. Legal costs in contested probate involving a High Court knowledge and approval claim can exceed £50,000-£200,000, far exceeding the value of many estates. Pre-litigation specialist legal advice is essential.

Careful will drafting and robust solicitor practice are the most effective protections against future knowledge and approval challenges: (1) INDEPENDENT INSTRUCTIONS: the testator should give instructions to the solicitor INDEPENDENTLY of any potential beneficiary. If a beneficiary accompanies the testator to the solicitor's office, the solicitor should see the testator alone for at least part of the meeting to take instructions. The attendance note should record that instructions were received independently; (2) ATTENDANCE NOTE PRACTICE: a detailed attendance note should record: (a) how the instructions were given (in person; by phone; by correspondence); (b) that the testator appeared to understand the provisions; (c) that the will was read aloud or handed to the testator to read; (d) that the testator confirmed they were satisfied with the contents; (e) that the testator made the will of their own free will and was not under pressure from any person; (f) the testator's mental state, orientation, and communication at the meeting; (3) ATTESTATION CLAUSE: for most standard wills, the standard attestation clause ('signed by the testator in our presence and we then subscribed our names as witnesses in the testator's presence') is sufficient. Where there are circumstances that might raise suspicion, an extended attestation clause should be used, specifically recording: (a) that the will was read to the testator; (b) that they approved the contents; (c) that they made the will freely and voluntarily. This provides prima facie evidence of knowledge and approval; (4) SPECIFIC RISK INDICATORS THAT WARRANT ENHANCED PRACTICE: (a) testator is elderly or has known health issues; (b) a beneficiary organises the will appointment or is present throughout; (c) the will substantially differs from previous testamentary intentions; (d) the testator has limited literacy or language skills; (e) there are family tensions or disputes; (5) GOLDEN RULE FOR ELDERLY TESTATORS: the 'golden rule' (from Re Simpson [1977] and confirmed in subsequent cases) is that where a will is made by an elderly or seriously ill testator, the solicitor should consider arranging for a medical practitioner to assess capacity at the time of execution. A medical certificate contemporaneous with execution provides strong evidence of both capacity AND (if the doctor also confirms the testator communicated the will's key provisions) knowledge and approval; (6) VIDEO RECORDING: increasingly, solicitors consider audio or video recording the will execution meeting (with the testator's consent) to provide direct evidence of the testator reading, understanding, and approving the will. This is a matter for professional judgment and should be handled carefully, but it can be decisive evidence in any future challenge.