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

Bellevue Law—Sara Mason

Bellevue Law—Sara Mason

Bellevue Law expands workplace law offering with specialist healthcare regulatory appointment

Seddons GSC—Peter Ames

Seddons GSC—Peter Ames

Seddons GSC strengthens Dispute Resolution team with partner hire

Taylor Rose—four promotions

Taylor Rose—four promotions

Taylor Rose announces partner promotions

NEWS
Group claims, disputed costs and judicial recruitment dominate the latest courtroom round-up
Landlords face fresh registration duties as procedural reforms reshape the civil courts
Sanctions can derail commercial disputes long before judgment, making early planning essential
Pressure is mounting for a dedicated UK AI law, but deciding what it should achieve remains the central challenge
Legal professional privilege has checked the SRA’s investigative powers, exposing difficult questions about tackling suspected abusive litigation
back-to-top-scroll