Goodman v Goodman & Ors

Goodman v Goodman & Ors

The evidence established that clause 3 was included due to a misunderstanding of instructions and was not intended to confer an additional legacy to Geoffrey Goodman; rectification by excision of clause 3 is warranted.

Parties
Claimant: Jennifer Goodman; 1st Defendant: Geoffrey Goodman; 2nd Defendant: Richard Clegg; 3rd Defendant: Simon Manuel
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Rectification of Will / Judgment
Outcome
Claim for rectification allowed
Legal Topics
Rectification of Wills, Testator's Intention, Clerical Error, Failure to Understand Instructions
Succession Law Probate Rectification of Wills Testator's Intention Clerical Error Failure to Understand Instructions

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jennifer Goodman

Claimant

Geoffrey Goodman

1st Defendant

Richard Clegg

2nd Defendant

Simon Manuel

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Rectification of Will / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 3 of Guy Mark Goodman's will should be rectified under section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 due to failure to carry out the testator’s intentions

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence established that clause 3 was included due to a misunderstanding of instructions and was not intended to confer an additional legacy to Geoffrey Goodman; rectification by excision of clause 3 is warranted.

Court Disposition

Claim for rectification allowed

Orders

  • Clause 3 of Guy Mark Goodman's will is excised