The burden that lies on the party seeking to prevent an express clause of revocation in a will from having the effect that would follow from the plain meaning of the words used. Langton J said: ‘It is a heavy burden upon a plaintiff who comes into this Court to say: ‘I agree that the testator was in every way fit to make a will, I agree that the will which he has made is perfectly clear and unambiguous in its terms, I agree that it contains a revocatory clause in simple words: nevertheless I say that he did not really intend to revoke the earlier bequests in earlier wills.’ Quite obviously the burden must be heavy upon anybody who comes to assert a proposition of that kind.’
Judges:
Langton J
Citations:
[1935] P 151
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 . .
Applied – Re Barker: Nemes v Baker 21-Apr-1995
(Supreme Court of Victoria) Tadgell J said: ‘The very existence of a revocation clause in a will is, however, prima facie solemnly eloquent of the testator’s intention. Evidence sufficient to rebut it must be clear and unequivocal. Nevertheless, if . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Wills and Probate
Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.375068