In a recent landmark decision by the Supreme Court (the UK former House of Lords) the Law Lords unanimously rectified Mirror Wills on the grounds of clerical error.
They overturned the rulings of the High Court and Court of Appeal, where a stricter interpretation had applied historically. The new approach, including where relevant, applying Commercial Contract Law principles to interpretation has been welcomed as a victory for common sense and flexibility, giving effect to the clear intention of the Testators.
Mr and Mrs Rawlings were husband and wife who had made “Mirror Wills” in 1999, each leaving their estates to the other, with the survivor leaving their estate to Terry Marley, whom they treated as their adopted son. They had chosen to exclude from the Wills their two biological sons, Terry and Michael Rawlings.
Unfortunately, they had each signed the wrong Will. This meant that neither Will was valid. This wasn’t spotted when Mrs Rawlings died in 2003. After Mr Rawlings’ death in 2006 the discrepancy came to light.
The adopted son applied to the High Court for Mr Rawlings’ Will to be rectified. He claimed the couple clearly intended to leave their estates to him. The High Court ruled against him, deciding that the Wills were invalid. It was impossible to go behind that, therefore Mr and Mrs Rawlings’ estates passed to their estranged sons under the Intestacy Rules.
On a strict traditional approach, their “Wills” could not be rectified by the Court, because neither document satisfied the strict minimum criteria to qualify as a “Will” under s9 of the Wills Act 1837. The document didn’t have Mr Rawlings’ knowledge and approval, accordingly the law on rectification was not applicable. The Judge also held that even if the document could be construed as a “Will”, she was not able to rectify it under s20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982, which permits rectification where there is a ‘clerical error’, as this was usually limited to typing errors.
Terry Marley’s appeal to the Court of Appeal failed. The Appeal Judges regretted that they had no choice and upheld Proudman J’s decision. In a highly anticipated judgment, the Supreme Court has now reversed the lower Courts’ decision and granted the appeal. Accordingly, the couple’s “adopted” son, Terry Marley, inherits as the couple intended
The Court held that a document does not have to be a valid “Will” within the legal definition, nor have the Testator’s knowledge and approval for it to be treated as a “Will” and subject to rectification.
Supreme Court Decision
In a much wider interpretation than had tied the lower Courts’ hands, the Supreme Court found that the couple signing the other’s Will by mistake did constitute a “clerical error” under s.20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982. It would be artificially restrictive to perpetuate a narrow interpretation. The Court held that the Will should be rectified to contain the true wording of the Will Mr Rawlings ought to have signed.
Whilst not decisive in this case, the judgment includes an important development to the law on interpretation of Wills, likely to have far-reaching implications for future cases. The Supreme Court held that if part of a Will is ambiguous and the true meaning has to be decided, the same approach can be adopted as when interpreting a commercial contract. This is to give effect to the intention of the parties (or party) involved. This comparison between Wills and construction of commercial contracts is a new development in the Law, where (except if s21 of the AJA 1982 applied), the intention is identified by interpreting the words used in the light of:
• their ordinary and natural meaning;
• the overall purpose of the document;
• any other provisions of the document;
• the facts known or assumed by the parties when the Will was executed; and
• common sense
• but, discounting subjective evidence of any party’s intentions
Although Mr Rawlings’ remaining Estate amounted to approximately £70,000, the ramifications of the judgment are wide ranging. The scope for the Courts to rectify wills and codicils on the basis of clerical error has been extended. The decision adopts a common sense approach to implement the true wishes of the Testators, although it obviously also underlines the importance of adhering to the strict execution formalities under the Act, which may be questionable with the popularity of DIY Wills.
It remains to be seen to what extent this widening of ‘clerical error’ and the Contract Law innovation placing importance on the ‘intention’ of the Testator will impact interpretation of Wills in future.
Although there are concerns that broadening the scope of ‘clerical error’ could “open the floodgates” of litigation, the judgment was highly fact-specific regarding Mirror Wills. The Courts are experienced in resolving borderline cases and justice demanded that the previous artificially narrow interpretations should be relaxed. There was compelling evidence of the deceased’s’ intentions and future cases are likely to be decided on the individual facts. The courts endeavour to carry out Testators’ clear wishes and the decision in Lord Neuberger’s judgment is in line with that principle where everyone is entitled to dispose of their estate as they choose. It is to be hoped that this liberalizing of interpretation and rectification will throw off the restrictive shackles that led to Terry Marley having to pursue two appeals before Mr and Mrs Rawlings’ wishes were realised.