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 the document signed by her late husband, and now appealed against rejection of her claim, the judge finding that the document had not been intended to be his will.
Held: The appeal failed. The Will did not satisfy section 9(b) of the 1837 Act, and rectification was not available to correct it.
Sir John Thomas
[2012] 2 FLR 556, [2012] EWCA Civ 61, [2013] 2 WLR 205, [2013] Ch 271, [2012] WTLR 639, 14 ITELR 843, [2012] Fam Law 403, [2012] 4 All ER 630
Bailii
Wills Act 1837 3 9, Wills Act Amendment Act 1852, Administration of Justice Act 1982 20 21
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromMarley 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 by:
At CAMarley 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 . .
Appeal fromMarley 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 March 2021; Ref: scu.450549