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 pecuniary legacy given by cl 7(iv). The error was that of her solicitor in giving effect to her instructions.
Held: Latey J said: ‘The introduction of the words ‘Clause 7’ instead of ‘Clause 7(iv)’ was per incuriam. The solicitor’s mind was never applied to it, and never adverted to the significance and effect. It was a mere clerical error on his part, a slip. He knew what the testatrix’s instructions and intentions were, and what he did was outside the scope of his authority.’ The fact that a will had been read over to a testator was not necessarily presumptive or conclusive proof that the testator approved the contents of the will. The court has a limited power to omit words from the probate on proof that they had been included in the will by fraud or mistake. Rectification as ‘a broad sense’ could only be ordered, through the omission from probate of words of which the Testator did not know and approve.
Where a testator has had the contents of a will brought to his or her attention and has executed it: ‘the inference would be that the testator knew and approved, but the point is that the court is not precluded from considering all the evidence to arrive at the truth, and this is so not only if fraud is suggested but also if mistake is suggested.
In my opinion, the approach of the court today is as stated by Sachs J in Crerar v Crerar. This case was not reported. . Sachs J said that ‘inquiries touching the validity of a testamentary disposition have always been considered matters touching the conscience of the court,’ and he rejected ‘the idea that there is any rule of law applicable to unusual cases which can so put that conscience into a strait-jacket as to preclude it from drawing inferences in the usual way and thus force the court to a decision which would, on the particular facts, be artificial’ sachs said the court had ‘to consider all the relevant evidence available and then, drawing such inferences as it can from the totality of that material, it has to come to a conclusion whether or not those propounding the will have discharged the burden of establishing that the testatrix knew and approved the contents of the document which is put forward as a valid testamentary disposition. The fact that the testatrix read the document, and the fact that she executed it, must be given the full weight apposite in the circumstances, but in law those facts are not conclusive, nor do they raise a presumption of law.’.’
Latey J
[1970] 1 All ER 1057, [1970] 2 WLR 865, [1971] P 62
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Guardhouse v Blackburn 1866
. .
Cited – Atter v Atkinson 1869
. .
Cited – Harter v Harter 1873
. .
Approved – Gregson v Taylor ChD 1917
Hill J said: ‘when it is proved that a will has been read over to or by a capable testator, and he then executes it’, the ‘grave and strong presumption’ of knowledge and approval ‘can be rebutted only by the clearest evidence.’ . .
Cited by:
Cited – Walker v Geo H Medlicott and Son (a Firm) CA 19-Nov-1998
The claimant said that the defendant solicitor had negligently failed to include in the will a specific devise of property in his favour.
Held: A beneficiary who alleged negligent failure of a will draftsman to include a gift to him in a will . .
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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – Sprackling and others v Sprackling and Another ChD 6-Nov-2008
Family members argued that the will did not reflect the wishes of the deceased. The deceased had owned substantial and varied farming businesses, and had made a new will leaving the farm to his seciond wife, and not the sons by his first marriage. . .
Cited – Lamothe v Lamothe and Others ChD 15-Jun-2006
The deceased had made a will in England but later made a will in Dominica revoking all other wills. After the first death, probate of the first will was taken out in ignorance of the second. The claimant, still in ignorance of the second will, took . .
Cited – Marley v Rawlings and Another ChD 3-Feb-2011
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 . .
Cited – Marley v Rawlings and Another ChD 3-Feb-2011
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 . .
Cited – Gill v Woodall and Others ChD 5-Oct-2009
The claimant challenged her late mother’s will which had left the entire estate to a charity. She asserted lack of knowledge and approval and coercion, and also an estoppel. The will included a note explaining that no gift had been made because she . .
Cited – Gill v Woodall and Others CA 14-Dec-2010
The court considered the authorities as to the capacity to make a will, and gave detailed guidance.
Held: As a matter of common sense and authority, the fact that a will has been properly executed, after being prepared by a solicitor and read . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Wills and Probate, Equity
Leading Case
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.241678