top of page
Search

“Cockney Bard” Loses Inheritance Claim and Faces £216,000 Costs Bill

  • Writer: Maplebrook Services
    Maplebrook Services
  • Jul 10
  • 4 min read

A television personality has been issued with a £216,000 costs order, £150,000 payable immediately, after failing to convince a court his father lacked testamentary capacity when drafting his 2016 will.


‘Cockney Bard’ Gary Allen, real name Gary Pammen, was disinherited by his father Terrance Pammen in his 2016 will, which only came to light when his father died in May 2022. He left an estate valued at £451,840, mainly tied up in his east London home.


Despite having five children, Terrance Pammen left the house and all his remaining assets to daughter Tracy and granddaughter Paige.


Court Rejects Testamentary Capacity Challenge


The case was heard in Central London County Court, with Gary Pammen claiming his father lacked testamentary capacity at the time of the drafting saying he did not “know and approve” its contents as he was too mentally frail when it was drawn up.


Wooden gavel resting on a white surface, casting a long shadow in bright light.

Although Terrance Pammen was diagnosed with dementia in 2020, he displayed no signs of a failing memory until 2017 or 2018, Tracey Pammen’s barrister, Tom Gosling, said. The court was provided with expert evidence from a psychiatrist confirming he was of sound mind.


Gary Pammen said he spoke to his father every day by phone, adding outside court that he loved his father and always got on with him, and that there was no clear reason for him to be disinherited.


He also claimed Tracy “raided” their father’s bank accounts in his final years, an allegation which she and her lawyers dismissed as nonsense.


Why the Will Was Upheld


Defending the will, Tracy and Paige said independent-minded Terrance was “totally sharp” when he drew up the will and had firm views about how he wanted to leave his estate. Terrance Pammen was working at Morrisons supermarket when he made the will, and carried on doing so for up to three years afterwards.


Finding in favour of Tracy and Paige, the judge said: “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".


Red double-decker bus outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London under a dark cloudy sky, with gothic spires and arches.

Why the Claim Was Described as Speculation


The judge continued:


“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.”


Costs Order Totals £216,013.85


Going on to direct Gary to pay his sister and niece’s court costs of £216,013.85, with a £150,000 up front payment, the judge concluded: “I can see no good reason for not ordering that Gary should make a payment on account. It seems to me that a payment on account of £150,000 is reasonable in the circumstances and I will so order.”


This case will serve as a powerful deterrent against weak or speculative claims, reinforcing the need for careful, early evaluation of both the merits of the case and the potential costs exposure.


Mr Pammen represented himself and so did not incur the costs of being legally represented during the trial, at least, but this appears to have been a false economy.


Lessons for Contesting a Will in England and Wales


If he had engaged lawyers specialising in this type of case, he would probably have been advised there was insufficient evidence to persuade the court that his father’s will was invalid and, if he had followed that advice, would not have continued with the claim and been left paying his sister’s legal costs, the level of which are not unusual.


 

Maplebrook Services Ltd is here to assist you in advising on creating an effective will, protect your estate and ensure your assets go to the people you choose.


At Maplebrook Services, we help clients by:



All advisors at Maplebrook Services are fully qualified Willwriters, registered with the Institute of Professional Willwriters, who undergo regular Continuing Professional Development through numerous Webinars, weekly updates and notifications of forthcoming/new legislation. Maplebrook Services Limited has €2.4 Million of Professional Indemnity Insurance.


Call us: +357 26 600780


bottom of page