header-logo header-logo

04 June 2020
Issue: 7889 / Categories: Legal News , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Remote witnessing of wills

The accepted view that a testamentary witness must be physically present is ‘misconceived’, solicitor Nicholas Bevan argues in this week’s NLJ

Bevan, who recently supervised the ‘first online remote execution of a will’, says there is ‘near uniform consensus within the legal profession’ that s 9 of the Wills Act 1837 insists on the physical presence of witnesses. Bevan writes: ‘It clearly does not.’

Strangely, s 9 is both more ancient and more modern than the 1837 Act. It has its origins in 1677 and its last iteration was substituted by the Administration of Justice Act 1982. Bevan’s argument traces a line of case authorities interpreting the statutory formalities for a valid will in light of various technological advances. He concludes that a statutory intervention to permit the remote witnessing of a will is not required because the law already allows this.

He concludes: ‘Given that video evidence can be now be adduced in criminal and civil trials it seems oddly anachronistic to trenchantly insist that this 1982 Act requires nothing less than a close physical attendance, when the provision itself is silent on the point and when not a single case authority supports that proposition.’

Bevan has written an open letter to Alex Chalk MP, at the Ministry of Justice, arguing the case for a practice direction to set good standards.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll