Eade v Hogg & Ors

Eade v Hogg & Ors

Clause 2(b) of the Will is ambiguous in light of surrounding circumstances and extrinsic evidence; the testator intended Mrs Nodes and Mr Eade to each receive up to 26% of shares, not 26% in total. The ambiguity and clerical error justify rectification to reflect this intention. Executor discretion was not intended...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Mr. Donald Keith Eade; Defendant: Mr. Rowland Anthony Rymer Hogg; Defendant: Mr. Ian Christopher Donaldson; Defendant: Mr. Ernest James Odds; Defendant: Mr. Nicholas Trevor Kirtley Nodes; Defendant: Cancer Research UK; Defendant: Mrs. Patricia Ann Nodes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Probate/will Construction and Rectification / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim succeeded; Will construed and rectified as sought by Claimant.
Legal Topics
Will Construction, Rectification, Ambiguity, Clerical Error, Executor Discretion
Probate Trusts Property Will Construction Rectification Ambiguity Clerical Error Executor Discretion

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. Donald Keith Eade

Claimant

Mr. Rowland Anthony Rymer Hogg

Defendant

Mr. Ian Christopher Donaldson

Defendant

Mr. Ernest James Odds

Defendant

Mr. Nicholas Trevor Kirtley Nodes

Defendant

Cancer Research UK

Defendant

Mrs. Patricia Ann Nodes

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate/will Construction and Rectification / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of clause 2(b) of the Will
  2. 2 Admissibility of extrinsic evidence under s.21 Administration of Justice Act 1982
  3. 3 Rectification of the Will under s.20 Administration of Justice Act 1982

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 2(b) of the Will is ambiguous in light of surrounding circumstances and extrinsic evidence; the testator intended Mrs Nodes and Mr Eade to each receive up to 26% of shares, not 26% in total. The ambiguity and clerical error justify rectification to reflect this intention. Executor discretion was not intended and arose from misunderstanding of instructions.

Court Disposition

Claim succeeded; Will construed and rectified as sought by Claimant.

Orders

  • Clause 2(b) of the Will construed to permit appointment of shares so that Mrs Nodes and Mr Eade each reach 26% shareholding.
  • Will rectified to replace 'both' with 'each' in clause 2(b).