Barrett v Bem and Others: CA 31 Jan 2012

Under section 9(a) of the Wills Act 1937, as amended, the court should not find that a will has been signed by a third party at the direction of the testator unless there is a positive and discernible communication (which may be verbal or non-verbal) by the testator that he wishes the will to be signed on his behalf by the third party

Judges:

Maurice Kay P, Hughes, Lewison LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 52, [2012] 2 All ER 920, [2012] WTLR 567, [2012] 3 WLR 330, [2012] WLR(D) 17, [2012] Ch 573

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Wills Act 1937 9(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromBarrett v Bem and Others ChD 19-May-2011
The court retried an action disputing the validity of the will, new evidence having emerged post trial. The doubtful signature was explained by witnesses who said that he had been assisted.
Held: The matter might have been handled better, but . .

Cited by:

CitedWrangle v Brunt and Another ChD 6-Jul-2020
Challenge to purported wills as forgeries.
Held: Though the will was not executed as described in the attestation clause: ‘On the totality of the evidence before me, I am satisfied Dean understood and approved what was in the will when it was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.450518