header-logo header-logo

29 January 2014
Issue: 7592 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Warning of clerical error “floodgates”

Solicitors fear more wills claims could follow Neuberger decision to rectify error

The Supreme Court’s decision to rectify a “clerical error” in a will could open the “floodgates” to further litigation, solicitors have warned.

In Marley v Rawlings [2014] UKSC 2, Mr and Mrs Rawlings had wished to benefit Terry Marley but exclude their own two sons. When their wills were executed, there was an administrative mistake and they inadvertently signed each other’s wills.

The High Court and Court of Appeal held that the Rawlings’ estate would pass through the intestacy rules to their two sons. However, the Supreme Court overturned their decisions and held that the will could be rectified to allow Marley to benefit.

James Lister, associate at Charles Russell, says: “Commentators will be inclined to say that this is a further example of the Supreme Court working hard to find a way to ‘do the right thing’, as they did in the landmark decision in Prest v Petrodel [2013] UKSC 34 last year. 

“However, the judgment also brings in a new area of uncertainly to what was previously a very rigidly applied area of law. The risk of a ‘floodgates’ scenario for those seeking to continue to widen the notion of ‘clerical error’ is clear and we are likely to see more claims being brought in relation to seeking to uphold or amend wills which would not have previously been possible. The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision could yet be far reaching for future claims.” 

Delivering the lead judgment, Lord Neuberger said: “Whether the document in question is a commercial contract or a will, the aim is to identify the intention of the party or parties to the document by interpreting the words used in their documentary, factual and commercial context.”

Matthew Duncan, partner at Kingsley Napley, says: “The concept of ‘clerical error’ has now been a given a wider meaning by the Supreme Court. To date, it was thought only typing errors could be fixed. This has now been extended to include mistakes arising from office work of a routine nature such as preparing, filing, sending, and organising the actual execution of a will."

 

Issue: 7592 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Ashurst's Chief Risk Officer joins Walkers

Excello Law—John Osborne

Excello Law—John Osborne

Northern family lawyer John Osborne joins Excello

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

Trio of promotions announced at Kidderminster law firm mfg Solicitors

NEWS
A sole director can conspire with their own company for the purposes of the tort of unlawful means conspiracy, the High Court has ruled in a judgment with potentially wide implications for business disputes
The Court of Appeal has reinforced that domicile depends on intention rather than residence alone, in a significant post-Brexit ruling on cross-border financial remedy claims
The Chancery Division's long history comes to an end this autumn as it is reborn as the Business and Property Division, prompting questions over whether the shake-up is really necessary
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) continues to show that failing to disclose regulatory issues can attract harsher consequences than the original misconduct itself
Rejecting a generous settlement can prove an expensive mistake, as two recent high-profile cases demonstrate
back-to-top-scroll