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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll