Barrett v Bem & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 52 (31 January 2012)

Barrett v Bem & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 52 (31 January 2012)

There was insufficient evidence of any positive communication by Martin Lavin directing Anne Liston to sign the will on his behalf; mere acquiescence or failure to object is not enough to satisfy the statutory requirement of a 'direction' under section 9(a) of the Wills Act 1837. The will was not validly executed.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 52
Parties
Appellant / Claimant: Michael Barrett; Respondent / Defendant: Hanora Bem; Respondent / Defendant: Matthew Bem; Respondent / Defendant: Alexander Bem; Respondent / Defendant: Sophie Bem; Respondent / Defendant: Eta Meehan; Respondent / Defendant: Beatrice O'Shea; Respondent / Defendant: Eamonn Barrett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Chancery Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; disputed will declared invalid; earlier 2002 will admitted to probate.
Legal Topics
Execution of Wills, Signature by Direction, Validity of Testamentary Documents, Public Policy in Probate
Wills and Probate Civil Procedure Execution of Wills Signature by Direction Validity of Testamentary Documents Public Policy in Probate

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Barrett

Appellant / Claimant

Hanora Bem

Respondent / Defendant

Matthew Bem

Respondent / Defendant

Alexander Bem

Respondent / Defendant

Sophie Bem

Respondent / Defendant

Eta Meehan

Respondent / Defendant

Beatrice O'Shea

Respondent / Defendant

Eamonn Barrett

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Chancery Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the will was validly executed under section 9 of the Wills Act 1837
  2. 2 Whether Anne Liston signed the will at Martin Lavin's direction
  3. 3 Whether a beneficiary can validly sign a will in their own favour

Ratio Decidendi

There was insufficient evidence of any positive communication by Martin Lavin directing Anne Liston to sign the will on his behalf; mere acquiescence or failure to object is not enough to satisfy the statutory requirement of a 'direction' under section 9(a) of the Wills Act 1837. The will was not validly executed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; disputed will declared invalid; earlier 2002 will admitted to probate.

Orders

  • Disputed 2004 will not admitted to probate.
  • 2002 will admitted to probate in solemn form.