marley_rawlingsChD11
References: [2011] EWHC 161 (Ch), [2011] 1 WLR 2146, [2011] 2 All ER 103, [2011] Fam Law 477
Links: Bailii
Coram: Proudman J
Ratio: 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 not intended to sign the document he had in fact signed. The 1982 Act allowed rectification only in the case of clerical error. Though the section should be interpreted generously, it was not capable of use to rectify such a mistake by amending the words of the will. The claim for rectification failed and the documentcould not be admitted to probate.
Statutes: Administration of Justice Act 1982 20, Wills Act 1837
This case cites:
- Cited – In re Morris Deceased ChD ([1971] P 62, [1970] 1 All ER 1057, [1970] 2 WLR 865)
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 – Re Price ChD ([2006] EWHC 2561 (Ch))
. . - Cited – In the Goods of Hunt ((1875) LR 3 PandD 250)
Two sisters had made similar, but not mirror, wills and by mistake each executed that of the other.
Held: The will was invalid. Sir J Hannen said ‘A paper has been signed as this lady’s will, which, as it happens, if treated as her will, would . . - Cited – Clarke v Brothwood and others; In re Clarke ChD (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 2939 (Ch))
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 – Re Meyer ([1908] P 353)
Two sisters made mirror codicils but each then executed that of the other sister.
Held: The dispositions contained in them were invalid.
Sir Gorell Barnes P said: ‘But it is quite clear that this lady, though her signature is on the . . - per incuriam – Re Vautier (2000 JLR 351)
(Royal Court of Jersey) The court considered a request for the rectification of a will: ‘To summarize, the common law of England recognized a power in the court to delete words from a will which were included by mistake but did not allow for power . . - 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 – Guardian Trust and Executors Company of New Zealand Ltd v Inwood and Others ([1946] NZLR 614)
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) The Court admitted a will to probate, omitting words naming the testatrix. Fair J said: ‘but it is submitted on behalf of the defendants, who are entitled under the intestacy, that it is not admissible to probate on the . . - 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 . . - Cited – Re Brander ([1952] 6 WWR (NS) 702)
(British Columbia Supreme Court) . . - Cited – In re Morris Deceased ChD ([1971] P 62, [1970] 1 All ER 1057, [1970] 2 WLR 865)
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 . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Appeal from – Marley v Rawlings and Another CA ([2012] 2 FLR 556, Bailii, [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)
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 . . - At First Instance – Marley v Rawlings and Another SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 2, [2014] 2 WLR 213, [2014] WTLR 299, 16 ITELR 642, [2014] 1 All ER 807, [2014] WLR(D) 18, [2014] Fam Law 466, Bailii Summary, WLRD, UKSC 2012/0057, SC Summary, SC)
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 . . - At ChD – Marley v Rawlings and Another (2) SC (Bailii Summary, SCBlog, [2014] WLR(D) 402, Bailii, [2014] UKSC 51, [2015] 1 AC 157, [2014] Fam Law 1682, [2014] WTLR 1511, [2014] 3 WLR 1015, [2014] 4 All ER 619, [2014] 5 Costs LR 905, Bailli Summary, WLRD)
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 . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 24 December 2018
Ref: 428428
The post Marley v Rawlings and Another: ChD 3 Feb 2011 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.