Pead v Prostate Cancer UK & Ors [2023] EWHC 642 (Ch) (22 March 2023)

Pead v Prostate Cancer UK & Ors [2023] EWHC 642 (Ch) (22 March 2023)

The claim for rectification fails because there is insufficient evidence to be confident that the deceased intended only family members to share in the residue. Clause 11 is ambiguous as to the method of division. The will should be construed as providing for the residuary estate to be divided pro rata among all beneficiaries named in clauses 4.1 to 4.8, according to the proportion that each beneficiary's legacy bears to the total gifts under clause 4.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 642 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Steven Leslie Pead; First Defendant: Prostate Cancer UK; Second Defendant: Macmillan Cancer Support; Third Defendant: Cancer Research UK; Fourth Defendant: Sally Pead; Fifth Defendant: Leah Grace Jones (a child) (by her litigation friend Ricky Jones); Sixth Defendant: Joshua Pead; Seventh Defendant: The Estate of Lisa Jones Deceased (represented by Adam Pead); Eighth Defendant: Adam Pead
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Probate/rectification Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Rectification claim dismissed; will to be construed as dividing residue pro rata among all beneficiaries named in clauses 4.1 to 4.8; clerical error in clause 4.7 to be rectified.
Legal Topics
Rectification of Wills, Interpretation of Wills, Clerical Error, Testator's Intention, Division of Residuary Estate
Wills and Probate Trusts Charity Law Rectification of Wills Interpretation of Wills Clerical Error Testator's Intention Division of Residuary Estate

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Leslie Pead

Claimant

Prostate Cancer UK

First Defendant

Macmillan Cancer Support

Second Defendant

Cancer Research UK

Third Defendant

Sally Pead

Fourth Defendant

Leah Grace Jones (a child) (by her litigation friend Ricky Jones)

Fifth Defendant

Joshua Pead

Sixth Defendant

The Estate of Lisa Jones Deceased (represented by Adam Pead)

Seventh Defendant

Adam Pead

Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate/rectification Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 11 of the will should be rectified to exclude charities from sharing in the residuary estate
  2. 2 How the residuary estate should be divided among beneficiaries named in clauses 4.1 to 4.8
  3. 3 Whether the phrase 'in accordance with the provisions relating to each gift' determines the method of division

Ratio Decidendi

The claim for rectification fails because there is insufficient evidence to be confident that the deceased intended only family members to share in the residue. Clause 11 is ambiguous as to the method of division. The will should be construed as providing for the residuary estate to be divided pro rata among all beneficiaries named in clauses 4.1 to 4.8, according to the proportion that each beneficiary's legacy bears to the total gifts under clause 4.

Court Disposition

Rectification claim dismissed; will to be construed as dividing residue pro rata among all beneficiaries named in clauses 4.1 to 4.8; clerical error in clause 4.7 to be rectified.

Orders

  • Rectification of clause 4.7 to increase legacy to Cancer Research UK from £5,000 to £6,000.
  • Residuary estate to be divided pro rata among beneficiaries named in clauses 4.1 to 4.8 according to the proportion of their legacy to the total gifts under clause 4.