References: [2006] EWHC 2939 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Behrens J
Ratio: 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 shares of one tenth and one twentieth, when it should have referred to per cent figures.
Held: Behrens J said: ‘It is to my mind inconceivable that if Mr Clarke had applied his mind to the problem he would not have appreciated that 60% of the residuary estate was undisposed of. Thus I am satisfied that he did not. In those circumstances the jurisdiction to rectify the will exists and I propose to rectify it.’
Statutes: Administration of Justice Act 1982 20
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Re Williams Deceased, Wiles v Madgin ChD ([1985] 1 WLR 905, [1985] 1 All ER 964)
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 Segelman (dec’d) ChD ([1996] Ch 171, [1996] 2 WLR 173, [1995] 3 All ER 676)
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 – Wordingham v Royal Exchange Trust Co Ltd and Another ChD (Gazette 06-May-92, [1992] Ch 412, [1992] 3 All ER 204)
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 . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Marley v Rawlings and Another ChD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 161 (Ch), [2011] 1 WLR 2146, [2011] 2 All ER 103, [2011] Fam Law 477)
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 . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 05 December 2018
Ref: 246708
The post Clarke v Brothwood and others; In re Clarke: ChD 16 Nov 2006 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.
