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

Arc Pensions Law—Matthew Swynnerton

Arc Pensions Law—Matthew Swynnerton

Chair of the Association of Pension Lawyers joins as partner

Ampa Group—Kamal Chauhan

Ampa Group—Kamal Chauhan

Group names Shakespeare Martineau partner head of Sheffield office

Blake Morgan—four promotions

Blake Morgan—four promotions

Four legal directors promoted to partner across UK offices

NEWS

The abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC

Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll