header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
27 October 2020 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7908 / Categories: Opinion , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

The video will execution regime: a half measure?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
An emergency measure has been introduced for the witnessing of wills, but Nicholas Bevan believes there’s been a missed opportunity

On 7 September this year the justice secretary published the Wills Act 1837 (Electronic Communications) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Order 2020 (the Order) (https://bit.ly/2G5jySQ). This is an emergency COVID-19 executive measure which sanctions the use of video conferencing technology to witness the making of wills over the internet.

The Order provides, for the first time, a statutory definition of ‘presence’ in s 9(c) and (d) of the Wills Act 1837 (WA 1837) ( https://bit.ly/37GL3NP). These provisions require a testator’s signature to be undertaken in the simultaneous ‘presence’ of two witnesses and for their attestation signatures also to be made in the testator’s ‘presence’.

Section 2(3) of the Order, temporarily amends WA 1837 by inserting: ‘…“presence” includes presence by means of videoconference or other visual transmission.’ This definition is given retrospective effect from 31 January 2020, but for two years only.

This statutory amendment is

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
Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

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