TV Psychic Issued Costs Order Regarding Father’s Will
Terrance Pammen disinherited his son and TV personality, Gary Allen (real name Gary Pammen), in his 2016 Will.
Terrance Pammen left his estate to his daughter, Tracy, and granddaughter, Paige (despite having 5 children himself).
Gary Pammen argued that his father lacked testamentary capacity (i.e. the legal and mental ability to make a valid Will) at that time. He claimed he had a good relationship with his father and could not understand the reason for being disinherited, whilst also making allegations about Tracey going through their father's bank accounts.
In 2020, Terrance Pammen was diagnosed with dementia; however, expert evidence proved that he was of sound mind when it came to preparing the Will. Terrance was even still working at the time the Will was prepared, and did so for another circa 3 years thereafter.
The Judge found in favour of Tracey and Paige, and said that:
“It is in my view crystal clear from all of this – on a holistic evaluation of all the factual and expert evidence… that Mr Pammen had testamentary capacity.
I regret to say that Gary’s case to the contrary, and this entire claim, is based upon no more than suspicion borne out of a family disagreement with Tracy – the details of which I have not been told – around about the time of his mother’s death.
This has led Gary to see every piece of evidence as supportive of his case, whereas in fact his belief – which no doubt he strongly and genuinely holds – is based on no more than confirmation bias, a willingness to see everything as supportive, rather than objective facts and what is more likely to have been the case.
Gary is simply unable to accept that his father did not leave him, his sister Jackie or his brother Mark anything, and he now sees everything as confirming that his father did not understand what was going on.
In fact, the evidence is to the contrary, and is that Mr Pammen’s cognitive problems did not cause any issues until at least a year after the Will.
Part of Gary’s complaint against Tracy and Paige is that there are large unexplained withdrawals from Mr Pammen’s account, particularly after a time when on the medical evidence there had been a dementia diagnosis. Gary said that they had fleeced his late father of tens of thousands of pounds.
I have decided that I should make no express finding on this other than that the money was not withdrawn by Tracy and/or Paige.
All I need to say is that I am not persuaded that the withdrawals were made by Tracy, save where Tracy accepted having made some more modest withdrawals for groceries for Mr Pammen.”
Gary Pammen was ordered to pay Tracey and Paige’s costs of circa £216,000 (with £150,000 being paid upfront).
This is a very clear example of why it is important to consider the cost aspect of challenging a Will. It is understood that Gary Pammen did not obtain legal advice specialising in this area, and if he had, he would have been advised accordingly with respect to the strength of his case and the cost aspect that needs to be considered.
If the case is not found in your favour, you not only have your own costs to pay, but potentially those of the other party too.
If you would like to discuss any of the above, please get in touch.
0207 183 4595
The information provided in this article is not intended to constitute professional advice and you should take full and comprehensive legal, accountancy or financial advice as appropriate on your individual circumstances by a fully qualified Solicitor, Accountant or Financial Advisor/Mortgage Broker before you embark on any course of action.
Comments