header-logo header-logo

Wills

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

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

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll