Steve Evans considers the impact of Millar v Millar when interpreting trust deeds
- Asserts that context is the driver for construction, in trust deeds as in commercial contracts. Looks at Millar v Millar.
There used to be an orthodox, if somewhat arbitrary approach in matters of construction where there were apparent contradictory words in wills or deeds. The position was that if the contradictory words appeared in a will, the later words prevailed, whereas if the contradictory clauses existed in a deed, the earlier words or clauses prevailed. It seems clear that formal and literalist rules or presumptions of construction have little part now to play in the twenty-first century judicial approach, and the recent case of Millar v Millar [2018] EWHC 1926 (Ch) continues to assert that context is key in approaching construction and rectification of trust deeds. This continues, confirms and applies the judicial discretion already seen to correct errors firstly in commercial contracts and then in wills.
Errors & intentions
The Administration of Justice Act 1982, ss 20 & 21 gave courts power, insofar as wills were concerned, to
