A married couple had purported to make mirror wills, but by mistake had each executed the will of the other. Rectification was now sought.
Held: The will did not comply with the 1837 Act and should not be admitted to probate. The testator had not intended to sign the document he had in fact signed. The 1982 Act allowed rectification only in the case of clerical error. Though the section should be interpreted generously, it was not capable of use to rectify such a mistake by amending the words of the will. The claim for rectification failed and the documentcould not be admitted to probate.
Proudman J
[2011] EWHC 161 (Ch), [2011] 1 WLR 2146, [2011] 2 All ER 103, [2011] Fam Law 477
Bailii
Administration of Justice Act 1982 20, Wills Act 1837
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In re Morris Deceased ChD 1970
A mistake was made in the drafting of a codicil by which, inter alia, the testatrix had revoked cl 7 of her will. It was clear from the evidence that the testatrix had never intended to revoke the whole of that clause but only to revoke the . .
Cited – Re Price ChD 2006
. .
Cited – In the Goods of Hunt 1875
Two sisters had made similar, but not mirror, wills and by mistake each executed that of the other.
Held: The will was invalid. Sir J Hannen said ‘A paper has been signed as this lady’s will, which, as it happens, if treated as her will, would . .
Cited – Clarke v Brothwood and others; In re Clarke ChD 16-Nov-2006
The claimant sought rectification of a will. The respondents argued that any mistake was not a clerical one so as to bring it within section 20. The gift of residue had left sixty per cent undisposed of. It was said that the will had referred to . .
Cited – Re Meyer 1908
Two sisters made mirror codicils to their wills but each then executed that of the other sister.
Held: The dispositions contained in them were invalid.
Sir Gorell Barnes P said: ‘But it is quite clear that this lady, though her . .
per incuriam – Re Vautier 2000
(Royal Court of Jersey) The court considered a request for the rectification of a will: ‘To summarize, the common law of England recognized a power in the court to delete words from a will which were included by mistake but did not allow for power . .
Cited – In re Segelman (dec’d) ChD 1996
The burden of proof which falls on a disappointed beneficiary who seeks rectification of the will, saying that the will did not give effect to a testator’s intentions, is an exacting one.
Chadwick J said: ‘Although the standard of proof . .
Cited – Guardian Trust and Executors Company of New Zealand Ltd v Inwood and Others 1946
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) The Court admitted a will to probate, omitting words naming the testatrix. Fair J said: ‘but it is submitted on behalf of the defendants, who are entitled under the intestacy, that it is not admissible to probate on the . .
Cited – Wordingham v Royal Exchange Trust Co Ltd and Another ChD 6-May-1992
A testatrix revoked her earlier will and, by an oversight and contrary to the testatrix’s instructions, her solicitor had failed to repeat in her later will, provisions of the earlier will exercising a testamentary power of appointment. The clerical . .
Cited – Re Brander 1952
(British Columbia Supreme Court) . .
Cited – In re Morris Deceased ChD 1970
A mistake was made in the drafting of a codicil by which, inter alia, the testatrix had revoked cl 7 of her will. It was clear from the evidence that the testatrix had never intended to revoke the whole of that clause but only to revoke the . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Marley v Rawlings and Another CA 2-Feb-2012
Mr and Mrs Rawlings had made wills in substantially similar format, but, mistakenly, they each executed the will intended for the other. After Mr Rawling died, the family disputed whether he had made a will. Mrs Rawling applied for rectification of . .
At First Instance – Marley v Rawlings and Another SC 22-Jan-2014
A husband and wife had each executed the will which had been prepared for the other, owing to an oversight on the part of their solicitor; the question which arose was whether the will of the husband, who died after his wife, was valid. The parties . .
At ChD – Marley v Rawlings and Another (2) SC 18-Sep-2014
The parties had disputed the validity of a will, and the successful wife of the deceased argued that her costs should be paid by those challenging the will rather than from the estate.
Held: The solicitors (or their insurers) who had made the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Wills and Probate
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.428428