Gill v Gill
A will torn up by the testator's wife without his direction, even in his presence, is not revoked, because destruction by another person must be in the testator's presence and by his direction.
Facts
During a quarrel, the testator's wife tore up his will in his presence. He did not direct her to do so, and he did not object at the time. After his death, the question arose whether the will had been revoked.
Legal principle
Sir John Bigham P held that the will had not been revoked. Under section 20 of the Wills Act 1837, a will can be revoked by destruction by the testator, or by some person in his presence and by his direction. The wife had destroyed the will in the testator's presence, but not by his direction, and his failure to object did not amount to a direction. A subsequent ratification would not do. The will could therefore be admitted to probate in the form of its contents as reconstructed from the evidence.
Related cases on revocation, construction and failure of gifts
- Re Adams [1990] Ch 601
- Cheese v Lovejoy (1877) 2 PD 251
- Re Cleaver [1981] 1 WLR 939
- Re Goodchild [1997] 1 WLR 1216
- Healey v Brown [2002] EWHC 1405 (Ch), [2002] WTLR 849
- Re Jones [1976] Ch 200
- Kell v Charmer (1856) 23 Beav 195
- Olins v Walters [2008] EWCA Civ 782, [2009] Ch 212
Studying wills, succession and probate? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
