header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
07 April 2011 / Alexander Learmonth KC
Issue: 7460 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

A regrettable blunder

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Alexander Learmonth investigates an unusual case of two wills being signed & executed by the wrong testators

The recent decision in Marley v Rawlings [2011] EWHC 161 (Ch), [2011] All ER (D) 43 (Feb), raised an interesting point of principle: could the power to rectify a will under s 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 (AJA 1982) be used to cure a defect of execution of a will?  Could such an error be categorised as a “clerical error”?

The facts are simple but, one hopes, unusual. Mr and Mrs Rawlings wished to make mirror wills, each leaving everything to the other, and the survivor leaving everything to their carer, and quasi-adopted son Mr Marley. But when the solicitor supervised the execution of these wills, he handed Mr Rawlings the will intended for Mrs Rawlings and vice-versa, and each signed and executed the wrong will. Neither the solicitor nor his secretary witnessing the execution spotted the error, and it was not picked up on the death of Mrs Rawlings, whose property passed

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
Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Regulatory team boosted by partner hire amid rising health and safety demand

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Legal director promoted to partner at specialist pensions firm

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Residential development capability expands with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll