header-logo header-logo

07 April 2011 / Alexander Learmonth KC
Issue: 7460 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

A regrettable blunder

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll