Goodman v Goodman, Clegg, Manuel: ChD 14 Jul 2006

The claimant sought rectification of the will to alter a clause leaving a monthly sum to the first defendant. She said it did not reflect the deceased’s wishes. It was accepted that ‘ the burden of proof rests on her to establish a case that Guy’s will fails to carry out his intentions because of a failure by Mr Wood to understand his instructions, and that that failure led to the inclusion in the will of clause 3. It is also accepted that because the will in its present form was executed with the necessary degree of formality, it requires convincing evidence to make out such a case.’
Held: The heavy burden was satisfied on the evidence, and rectification was appropriate. The clause complained of was clearly part of another arrangement between the parties and had not been altered with the rest.
Evans-Lombe J
[2006] EWHC 1757 (Ch)
Administration of Justice Act 1982 20
England and Wales
CitedIn 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 March 2021; Ref: scu.243152