header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
26 November 2009 / Paola Fudakowska , Adam Cloherty , Paul Hewitt
Issue: 7395 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

A battle of wills

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Paul Hewitt, Paola Fudakowska & Adam Cloherty examine rectification & statutory wills

In Parkinson v Fawdon [2009] EWHC 1953 (Ch) the deceased (D) and H owned a farm jointly. They made mirror wills, under which each left his estate to the other, appointing him as sole executor. In the event that the other did not survive the testator, an alternative executor was named with substitute provisions in respect of residue.

D died two weeks after H and the alternative provisions of D’s will took effect in relation to both estates. D’s will appointed the defendant (F) and “Mark Parkinson of 215 Ditching Road Brighton in the County of Sussex” as his executors. The residuary estate was to be divided between Mark Parkinson, F and her sisters.

P brought an application for rectification of the will under Administration of Justice Act 1982, s 20 on the basis that there was no one who matched the description of “Mark Parkinson of 215 Ditching Road Brighton in the County of Sussex” and

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll