References: [2010] EWHC 3679 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Henderson J
Ratio: 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 was always meant to be included in the class of Beneficiaries for the purposes of the overriding powers in clause 9, and that the omission of his name from the Beneficiaries, in the context of that clause at any rate, was simply an oversight. It was a drafting slip, which both as a matter of ordinary language, and on the authorities, can readily be classified as a clerical error; and it is therefore one which the court happily now has jurisdiction to put right.’
Statutes: Administration of Justice Act 1982 20
This case cites:
- Cited – Pengelly v Pengelly ChD ([2008] Ch 375)
Where a word or words have been mistakenly omitted from a will there may well be greater potential for characterising the error as one of a clerical nature. This reflects a natural, almost intuitive, reaction that it is easier to find a clerical . . - 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 – 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 . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – 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: 27 December 2018
Ref: 439797
The post Bimson, Re The Estate of: ChD 26 Jul 2010 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.