header-logo header-logo

08 March 2012 / Mark Warwick
Issue: 7504 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

Signing your life away?

Mark Warwick studies the requirements of a legitimate will

On 31 January 2012 and 2 February 2012, the Court of Appeal handed down judgments dealing with the formalities required for the making of a will. In each case the court was faced with a conflict between upholding the testator’s intention and enforcing the requirements of s 9 of the Wills Act 1837 (WA 1837). Although the two judgments were plainly prepared by differently constituted Courts of Appeal in ignorance of one another, the judgments adopt a similar approach to the construction of s 9. This approach is one that demands an insistence upon exact compliance with the statutory requirements for the making of a will contained within s 9.

Literalism v intention

Since, in other fields, such as the construction of contracts, literalism often gives way to the party’s intentions, it is important to recognise that the formalities required to make a valid will are strictly enforced. It is for this reason, if no other, that the recent cases justify examination.

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll