Joshi & Ors v Mahida [2013] EWHC 486 (Ch) (08 March 2013)

Joshi & Ors v Mahida [2013] EWHC 486 (Ch) (08 March 2013)

The evidence, including solicitor's attendance notes, established that the testator intended his entire half share in the Leytonstone Road property to go to his brother and his brother's three sons. The wording of clause 3(c) was a clerical error, as it failed to reflect this intention. Section 20(1)(a) of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 applies, and the Will should be rectified accordingly.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 486 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Ashwin Joshi; Claimant: Jagdishbhai Patel; Claimant: Arjunsinh Mahendersinh Mahida; Claimant: Shailessinh Arjunsinh Mahida; Claimant: Kalpesh Kumar Arjunsinh Mahida; Claimant: Upendersinh Arjunsinh Mahida; Defendant: Dhanlaxmi Kirit Kumar Mahida
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Claim for Rectification of Will / Judgment After Hearing; Defendant Not Present or Represented
Outcome
Claim allowed; Will to be rectified
Legal Topics
Rectification of Wills, Clerical Error, Testator's Intention, Administration of Justice Act 1982 S.20
Wills and Probate Equity Rectification of Wills Clerical Error Testator's Intention Administration of Justice Act 1982 S.20

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

Parties

Ashwin Joshi

Claimant

Jagdishbhai Patel

Claimant

Arjunsinh Mahendersinh Mahida

Claimant

Shailessinh Arjunsinh Mahida

Claimant

Kalpesh Kumar Arjunsinh Mahida

Claimant

Upendersinh Arjunsinh Mahida

Claimant

Dhanlaxmi Kirit Kumar Mahida

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Claim for Rectification of Will / Judgment After Hearing; Defendant Not Present or Represented

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 3(c) of the Will should be rectified under s.20(1)(a) of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 due to clerical error
  2. 2 Whether the Will as drafted failed to carry out the testator's intentions

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence, including solicitor's attendance notes, established that the testator intended his entire half share in the Leytonstone Road property to go to his brother and his brother's three sons. The wording of clause 3(c) was a clerical error, as it failed to reflect this intention. Section 20(1)(a) of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 applies, and the Will should be rectified accordingly.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; Will to be rectified

Orders

  • Clause 3(c) of the Will to be rectified by substituting 'my one half share' for 'one half of my share'
  • No order as to costs