header-logo header-logo

29 January 2014
Issue: 7592 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Warning of clerical error “floodgates”

Solicitors fear more wills claims could follow Neuberger decision to rectify error

The Supreme Court’s decision to rectify a “clerical error” in a will could open the “floodgates” to further litigation, solicitors have warned.

In Marley v Rawlings [2014] UKSC 2, Mr and Mrs Rawlings had wished to benefit Terry Marley but exclude their own two sons. When their wills were executed, there was an administrative mistake and they inadvertently signed each other’s wills.

The High Court and Court of Appeal held that the Rawlings’ estate would pass through the intestacy rules to their two sons. However, the Supreme Court overturned their decisions and held that the will could be rectified to allow Marley to benefit.

James Lister, associate at Charles Russell, says: “Commentators will be inclined to say that this is a further example of the Supreme Court working hard to find a way to ‘do the right thing’, as they did in the landmark decision in Prest v Petrodel [2013] UKSC 34 last year. 

“However, the judgment also brings in a new area of uncertainly to what was previously a very rigidly applied area of law. The risk of a ‘floodgates’ scenario for those seeking to continue to widen the notion of ‘clerical error’ is clear and we are likely to see more claims being brought in relation to seeking to uphold or amend wills which would not have previously been possible. The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision could yet be far reaching for future claims.” 

Delivering the lead judgment, Lord Neuberger said: “Whether the document in question is a commercial contract or a will, the aim is to identify the intention of the party or parties to the document by interpreting the words used in their documentary, factual and commercial context.”

Matthew Duncan, partner at Kingsley Napley, says: “The concept of ‘clerical error’ has now been a given a wider meaning by the Supreme Court. To date, it was thought only typing errors could be fixed. This has now been extended to include mistakes arising from office work of a routine nature such as preparing, filing, sending, and organising the actual execution of a will."

 

Issue: 7592 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll