header-logo header-logo

31 January 2014
Issue: 7592 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Wills

Marley v Rawlings and another [2014] UKSC 2, [2014] All ER (D) 132 (Jan)

Section 21(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 confirmed that a will should be interpreted in the same way as a contract, a notice or a patent. In particular, s 21(1)(c) showed that “evidence” was admissible when construing a will, and that that included the “surrounding circumstances”. However, s 21(2) went further. It indicated that, if one or more of the three requirements set out in s 21(1) was satisfied, then direct evidence of the testator’s intention was admissible, in order to interpret the will in question. Accordingly, save where s 21(1) applied, a will was to be interpreted in the same way as any other document, but, in addition, in relation to a will, or a provision in a will, to which s 21(1) applied, it was possible to assist its interpretation by reference to evidence of the testator’s actual intention.

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

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll