header-logo header-logo

31 January 2014
Issue: 7592 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Wills

Marley v Rawlings and another [2014] UKSC 2, [2014] All ER (D) 132 (Jan)

Section 21(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 confirmed that a will should be interpreted in the same way as a contract, a notice or a patent. In particular, s 21(1)(c) showed that “evidence” was admissible when construing a will, and that that included the “surrounding circumstances”. However, s 21(2) went further. It indicated that, if one or more of the three requirements set out in s 21(1) was satisfied, then direct evidence of the testator’s intention was admissible, in order to interpret the will in question. Accordingly, save where s 21(1) applied, a will was to be interpreted in the same way as any other document, but, in addition, in relation to a will, or a provision in a will, to which s 21(1) applied, it was possible to assist its interpretation by reference to evidence of the testator’s actual intention.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll