Clairvoyance Optional, Evidence Required: TV Psychic Fails to Predict £216,000 Costs Order

There is a brutal lesson in this case, and it has very little to do with psychic ability.

Gary Pammen, better known as television personality the “Cockney Bard”, challenged his late father’s 2016 Will after discovering he had been disinherited. His father, Terrance Pammen, left an estate worth around £451,840, largely made up of his east London home, to his daughter Tracy and granddaughter Paige.

Gary argued that his father lacked testamentary capacity when the Will was made and did not properly know and approve its contents. The court disagreed.

In fact, it did more than disagree. It found that Terrance Pammen had capacity, that the evidence did not support Gary’s challenge, and that the claim was essentially built on suspicion, family grievance and confirmation bias.

The result? A costs order of £216,013.85, with £150,000 payable immediately.

So, a failed Will challenge has now left one disappointed beneficiary facing a legal bill that could swallow a very large part of the estate he was hoping to recover. That is the part many families do not see coming. And yes, in this case, the irony rather writes itself.

Lessons

This case is a stark reminder that probate litigation is not a forum for airing hurt feelings. A person being excluded from a Will may feel unfair. It may feel inexplicable. It may even feel morally wrong. But none of that automatically makes a Will invalid.

The court is not asking whether the disappointed child feels aggrieved. The court is asking whether there is proper evidence that the testator lacked capacity, was unduly influenced, or did not understand and approve the will. That distinction matters.

Here, the father was diagnosed with dementia in 2020, but the Will was made in 2016. The evidence before the court indicated that his cognitive issues did not create problems until after the Will was executed. He was still working at Morrisons when the Will was made and continued doing so for some time afterwards. That is crucial.

A later dementia diagnosis does not automatically invalidate an earlier Will. Capacity is assessed at the time the Will was made — not with the benefit of hindsight, not through family resentment, and not because the final wishes seem surprising.

The expensive danger of “something doesn’t feel right”

Many Will disputes begin with a version of the same sentence; “This cannot be what they really wanted.” Sometimes that instinct is right. Sometimes there has been pressure, manipulation, isolation, financial abuse or a serious issue with capacity.

But sometimes the uncomfortable truth is simpler: the person making the Will knew exactly what they were doing, even if the decision seems harsh to those left out. That is why evidence matters. Medical records matter. Solicitor notes matter. Witness evidence matters. Contemporaneous documents matter. The circumstances around the preparation of the Will matter. Suspicion alone is not enough. And in this case, suspicion has proved very expensive indeed.

The wider lesson for families

For anyone considering challenging a Will, this case should be required reading.

Before issuing proceedings, ask:

What evidence do I actually have?

Not what do I believe. Not what do I feel. Not what do I think must have happened.

What can I prove?

Because if the answer is “not much”, the risk is not just losing the claim. The risk is paying the other side’s costs as well.

That is exactly what happened here.

A £216,000 costs order is not a slap on the wrist. It is financially devastating.

The lesson for professionals

For private client professionals, this case also reinforces the importance of good file notes, proper capacity checks and clear records when preparing Wills, particularly where there is a possibility of family disappointment later. A well-drafted Will is important., but a well-evidenced Will is often what saves the estate from litigation.

Where a client is excluding children, favouring one family member, or making a decision that is likely to be challenged, the preparation process needs to be especially careful. The estate planners file may one day become the most important evidence in the case.

The court does not accept “I had a feeling” as evidence — even from a psychic.

At iTrust121, our view is simple: early, objective advice is not a luxury in estate disputes. It is often the difference between a sensible resolution and financial disaster.

James Berkeley

Senior Counsel

iTrust121 Ltd