Barrett v Bem & Ors

Barrett v Bem & Ors

The 2004 Will was validly executed because Anne signed it at Martin Lavin’s direction after he failed to sign due to physical incapacity; Martin knew and approved its contents; section 9(a) Wills Act 1837 was satisfied by direction and presence of witnesses, and section 15 did not invalidate the gift to Anne.

Parties
Claimant: Michael Barrett; First Defendant: Hanora Bem; Second Defendant: Matthew Bem; Third Defendant: Alexander Bem; Fourth Defendant: Sophie Bem; Fifth Defendant: Eta Meehan; Sixth Defendant: Beatrice O’Shea; Seventh Defendant: Eamonn Barrett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Probate / Retrial After Court of Appeal Remittal
Outcome
Claim dismissed; court pronounces in favour of the 2004 Will in solemn form.
Legal Topics
Validity of Wills, Execution of Wills, Knowledge and Approval, Beneficiary Signing at Testator's Direction, Section 9 Wills Act 1837, Section 15 Wills Act 1837
Probate Succession Civil Procedure Validity of Wills Execution of Wills Knowledge and Approval Beneficiary Signing at Testator's Direction Section 9 Wills Act 1837 +1 more

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 7 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Barrett

Claimant

Hanora Bem

First Defendant

Matthew Bem

Second Defendant

Alexander Bem

Third Defendant

Sophie Bem

Fourth Defendant

Eta Meehan

Fifth Defendant

Beatrice O’Shea

Sixth Defendant

Eamonn Barrett

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate / Retrial After Court of Appeal Remittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2004 Will was validly executed under section 9(a) of the Wills Act 1837
  2. 2 Whether Martin Lavin knew and approved the contents of the 2004 Will
  3. 3 Effect of beneficiary signing will at testator's direction

Ratio Decidendi

The 2004 Will was validly executed because Anne signed it at Martin Lavin’s direction after he failed to sign due to physical incapacity; Martin knew and approved its contents; section 9(a) Wills Act 1837 was satisfied by direction and presence of witnesses, and section 15 did not invalidate the gift to Anne.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; court pronounces in favour of the 2004 Will in solemn form.

Orders

  • Pronouncement in favour of the 2004 Will in solemn form
  • Dismissal of Michael Barrett’s claim