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.
Held: Some rectifications were agreed. However, as to the rest, the sons had overstated the deceased’s concerns about the businesses, and the business position could not support their arguments for further rectification.
Norris J
[2008] EWHC 2696 (Ch)
Administration of Justice Act 1982 20(1)
England and Wales
CitedIn re Morris Deceased ChD 1970
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 . .
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: 11 February 2021; Ref: scu.277569