Eade v Hogg & Ors [2021] EWHC 1057 (Ch) (30 April 2021)

Eade v Hogg & Ors [2021] EWHC 1057 (Ch) (30 April 2021)

The court found that clause 2(b) of the Will was ambiguous in light of the surrounding circumstances and extrinsic evidence, including contemporaneous documents and expert handwriting analysis, which established that the deceased intended each of Mr Eade and Mrs Nodes to receive up to 26% of the shares. The Will was rectified under s.20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 to reflect this intention, as the error arose from a clerical mistake in transcribing 'each' as 'both'.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1057 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Mr. Donald Keith Eade; 1st Defendant (executor): Mr. Rowland Anthony Rymer Hogg; 2nd Defendant (executor): Mr. Ian Christopher Donaldson; 3rd Defendant (executor): Mr. Ernest James Odds; 4th Defendant (beneficiary): Mr. Nicholas Trevor Kirtley Nodes; 5th Defendant (beneficiary): Cancer Research UK; 6th Defendant (beneficiary): Mrs. Patricia Ann Nodes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Probate/will Construction and Rectification / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Construction of Wills, Rectification of Wills, Ambiguity in Testamentary Documents, Extrinsic Evidence Under Administration of Justice Act 1982, Clerical Error in Will Drafting
Wills and Probate Trusts Charity Law Construction of Wills Rectification of Wills Ambiguity in Testamentary Documents Extrinsic Evidence Under Administration of Justice Act 1982 Clerical Error in Will Drafting

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. Donald Keith Eade

Claimant

Mr. Rowland Anthony Rymer Hogg

1st Defendant (executor)

Mr. Ian Christopher Donaldson

2nd Defendant (executor)

Mr. Ernest James Odds

3rd Defendant (executor)

Mr. Nicholas Trevor Kirtley Nodes

4th Defendant (beneficiary)

Cancer Research UK

5th Defendant (beneficiary)

Mrs. Patricia Ann Nodes

6th Defendant (beneficiary)

Procedural Posture

Probate/will Construction and Rectification / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 2(b) of the Will should be construed to allow appointment of shares to bring each of Mr Eade and Mrs Nodes up to 26% or only 26% in total between them
  2. 2 Whether clause 2(b) is ambiguous so as to admit extrinsic evidence under s.21 Administration of Justice Act 1982
  3. 3 Whether the Will should be rectified under s.20 Administration of Justice Act 1982 due to clerical error or failure to understand instructions

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that clause 2(b) of the Will was ambiguous in light of the surrounding circumstances and extrinsic evidence, including contemporaneous documents and expert handwriting analysis, which established that the deceased intended each of Mr Eade and Mrs Nodes to receive up to 26% of the shares. The Will was rectified under s.20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 to reflect this intention, as the error arose from a clerical mistake in transcribing 'each' as 'both'.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that clause 2(b) of the Will is to be construed and/or rectified so that the trustees may appoint to each of Mr Eade and Mrs Nodes such number of shares as will bring their respective shareholdings up to 26% each.
  • Rectification of the Will under s.20 Administration of Justice Act 1982 to substitute 'each' for 'both' in clause 2(b).