Re Jones
Where a will in the testator's possession is found mutilated after death, there is a presumption that the testator destroyed it with the intention of revoking it, which can be rebutted by evidence.
Facts
Mrs Jones made a will leaving her property to two nieces. Later, she fell out with them, and told her bank manager that she wanted to make a new will in favour of others. After her death, her will was found among her papers with the parts of the will containing the dispositions cut out. The question was whether the will had been revoked, or whether it should be reconstructed and admitted to probate.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the will had been revoked. The court said that where a will which was last known to be in the possession of the testator is found after the testator's death in a mutilated condition, there is a presumption that the testator mutilated it with the intention of revoking it, and the burden is on those who wish to show otherwise. The evidence of Mrs Jones's statements to her bank manager supported the inference that she had intended to revoke the will, and there was no evidence to rebut the presumption. She therefore died intestate.
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
- Gill v Gill [1909] P 157
- Re Goodchild [1997] 1 WLR 1216
- Healey v Brown [2002] EWHC 1405 (Ch), [2002] WTLR 849
- 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.
