Boswell & Ors v Lawson & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 452 (19 April 2011)

Boswell & Ors v Lawson & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 452 (19 April 2011)

The evidence, including the testator's conduct, prior intentions, and subsequent explanations, supported the conclusion that the will as drafted reflected Mr Appleby's true intentions; the only error was in the solicitor's explanatory letter, not the will. Therefore, rectification was not warranted and the application was properly refused.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 452
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Judith Ann Boswell; Claimant/appellant: Jennifer Wycoff; Claimant/appellant: Jacqueline Olds; Defendant/respondent: John Lawson; Defendant/respondent: Sean Harold Hudson; Defendant/respondent: Philip John Appleby; Defendant/respondent: Carol Ann Appleby
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From County Court Judgment Refusing Rectification of Will and Extension of Time
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rectification of Wills, Testamentary Intention, Clerical Error, Extension of Time Under Administration of Justice Act 1982
Wills and Probate Civil Procedure Rectification of Wills Testamentary Intention Clerical Error Extension of Time Under Administration of Justice Act 1982

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Judith Ann Boswell

Claimant/appellant

Jennifer Wycoff

Claimant/appellant

Jacqueline Olds

Claimant/appellant

John Lawson

Defendant/respondent

Sean Harold Hudson

Defendant/respondent

Philip John Appleby

Defendant/respondent

Carol Ann Appleby

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From County Court Judgment Refusing Rectification of Will and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the will of Mr John Thomas Lynch Appleby failed to carry out his intentions due to clerical error or failure to understand instructions under s.20 Administration of Justice Act 1982
  2. 2 Whether the court should rectify the will and extend time for application

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence, including the testator's conduct, prior intentions, and subsequent explanations, supported the conclusion that the will as drafted reflected Mr Appleby's true intentions; the only error was in the solicitor's explanatory letter, not the will. Therefore, rectification was not warranted and the application was properly refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Refusal to rectify the will
  • Refusal to extend time for application