Barrett v Bem & Ors

Barrett v Bem & Ors

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

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
Probate Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; disputed will declared invalid; earlier will admitted to probate.
Legal Topics
Execution of Wills, Signature by Direction, Validity of Testamentary Documents, Public Policy in Probate
Succession Probate 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

Probate Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

There was insufficient evidence of any positive communication by Martin Barrett directing Anne to sign the will on his behalf. Mere acquiescence or failure to object does not 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 will admitted to probate.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • 2004 will declared invalid