header-logo header-logo

21 May 2025
Issue: 8117 / Categories: Legal News , Wills & Probate , Technology , Court of Protection
printer mail-detail

Testamentary freedom in a digital era

The Law Commission has proposed increased protection against undue influence, an end to the ‘automatic revocation’ rule and the introduction of electronic wills

Its report, ‘Modernising wills law’, and draft Bill, published last week, would overhaul the legal framework established by the Wills Act 1837. It recommends electronic wills be valid, subject to ‘an additional formality requirement’. Other changes would reduce the minimum age from 18 to 16, and increasing protections for those who are coerced into making a will.

The commissioners expressed concern that the revocation of wills on marriage or civil partnership was motivating ‘predatory marriages’ where someone marries in order to inherit. They recommended abolishing the rule.

They also suggest giving judges the power to order a will be considered legally valid in ‘exceptional circumstances’ where the deceased’s intentions are clear but formal requirements have not been met. On the other hand, they warned the law does not provide enough protection against coercion. Where formalities have been complied with but there are reasonable grounds to suspect coercion, they recommend it be possible for courts to infer undue influence.

Hayley Robinson, private wealth disputes specialist, Stevens & Bolton, broadly welcomed the proposals but warned there could be a spike in disputes—both regarding the requirements of electronic wills and on the meaning of ‘exceptional circumstances’ where courts approve formally invalid wills.

Robinson said: ‘These proposals rip up nearly two centuries of learning on the creation of wills, mostly for good reason.

‘Particularly welcome is the recommendation to change the huge unfairness sometimes created by the automatic revocation of a will by marriage.’

Robinson urged ‘significant caution’ on electronic wills ‘as one of the few benefits of the current requirements for executing a will are the formalities creating a degree of protection from good old paper and ink’.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll