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 error was due to an error in the process of recording the testator’s instructions, not in the drafting of the will.
Held: The court rectified the will under section 20(1)(a) of the 1982 Act by writing the missing clause into it. Evans-Lombe QC J said: ‘The words ‘clerical error’ used in section 20(1)(a) of the 1982 Act are to be construed as meaning an error made in the process of recording the intended words of the testator in the drafting or transcription of his will.’
Evans-Lombe QC J
Gazette 06-May-1992, [1992] Ch 412, [1992] 3 All ER 204
Administration of Justice Act 1982 20(1)(a)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In 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 . .
Cited – Sharp’s Patent, re, ex parte Wordsworth CA 1840
The court considered what counted as a clerical error: ‘And in every case which has occurred, it has plainly been intended to do no more than to amend mere slips or clerical errors made by the parties, or the agents of the parties, who intending to . .
Cited – Regina v Commissioner of Patents, ex parte Martin 1953
(Australia) The applicant sought registration of a patent. In his application, he accidentally described himself as the originator of the idea, whereas in fact he was the assignee.
Held: The court construed the provision of patent law: ‘The . .
Cited – Re Williams Deceased, Wiles v Madgin ChD 1985
A testator writing out his own will can make a clerical error just as much as someone else writing out a will for him. ‘In passing, I note that there is no claim for rectification in the present case. It was suggested in the course of argument that . .
Cited – In 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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – Clarke v Brothwood and others; In re Clarke ChD 16-Nov-2006
The claimant sought rectification of a will. The respondents argued that any mistake was not a clerical one so as to bring it within section 20. The gift of residue had left sixty per cent undisposed of. It was said that the will had referred to . .
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 – 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 – Bimson, Re The Estate of ChD 26-Jul-2010
Application to rectify the will under the 1982 Act.
Held: The application succeeded. Henderson J said: ‘this case falls comfortably within the scope of clerical error within the meaning of section 20(1)(a). It appears to me plain that David . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Wills and Probate
Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.90607