Marley v Rawlings
A will which a husband mistakenly signed instead of his own, in a mix up of mirror wills, could be rectified under section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 as a clerical error.
Facts
Mr and Mrs Rawlings made mirror wills, each leaving their estate to the other, and then to Mr Marley, whom they treated as their son, to the exclusion of their two sons. By mistake, their solicitor gave each of them the other's will to sign, and the mistake was not noticed. After both had died, Mr Marley sought to prove the will signed by Mr Rawlings. The Rawlings' sons argued that the will was invalid, because Mr Rawlings had not intended to give effect to the will he signed.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held that the will could be rectified. Lord Neuberger said that the interpretation of a will is to be approached in the same way as the interpretation of a contract, by identifying the meaning of the relevant words in the light of their natural meaning, the overall purpose of the document, the other provisions, the facts known or assumed by the testator, and common sense. The mistake was a clerical error within section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982, which covers mistakes arising from office work of a routine nature. Once rectified, the will satisfied the formalities of section 9 of the Wills Act 1837, because Mr Rawlings had intended to give effect to the will as it should have been.
Related cases on formalities, execution, undue influence and rectification
- Barrett v Bem [2012] EWCA Civ 52, [2012] Ch 573
- Re Bravda [1968] 1 WLR 479
- Re Colling [1972] 1 WLR 1440
- Hall v Hall (1868) LR 1 P & D 481
- Wingrove v Wingrove (1885) 11 PD 81
- Wood v Smith [1993] Ch 90
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.
