Re Beadle: 1974

Although it is unnecessary that the attesting witnesses know that the document they are signing is a will, it is necessary to show that the attesting witnesses when signing the will intended by their signatures to verify that the testator had signed or acknowledged his signature in their presence. The court rejected an argument that attestation was not a matter of intention.


Goff J


[1974] 1 WLR 417


CitedIn the Estate of Bercovitz, deceased; Canning v Enever ChD 1961
The court considered the requirements for a valid execution of a will.
Held: The court must be satisfied that the witness had signed the will with the intention of attesting the testator’s signature or of attesting the will. Phillimore J . .

Cited by:

CitedSherrington v Sherrington ChD 13-Jul-2004
The deceased had divorced and remarried. His children challenged the will made after his second marriage.
Held: There was cogent evidence that the will was not properly executed and that the will went against his wishes as expressed to others. . .
CitedSherrington v Sherrington CA 22-Mar-2005
The deceased, a solicitor of long standing, was said to have signed his will without having read it, and had two witnesses sign the document without them knowing what they were attesting. He had remarried, and the will was challenged by his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.198739