Marley v Rawlings & Anor

Marley v Rawlings & Anor

The requirement of s. 9(b) of the Wills Act 1837 is not met as the testator did not intend by his signature to give effect to the will he signed. The error was not in the wording of the will but in execution, and s. 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 does not confer jurisdiction to rectify in these circumstances.

Parties
Claimant: Terry Michael Marley; Defendant: Terry Rawlings; Defendant: Michael Rawlings
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Probate/rectification / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Rectification of Wills, Clerical Error, Testator's Intention, Formal Validity of Wills
Probate Succession Wills Rectification of Wills Clerical Error Testator's Intention Formal Validity of Wills

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terry Michael Marley

Claimant

Terry Rawlings

Defendant

Michael Rawlings

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate/rectification / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can rectify a will mistakenly signed by the testator under s. 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982
  2. 2 Whether the will signed by Mr Rawlings meets the requirements of s. 9(b) of the Wills Act 1837

Ratio Decidendi

The requirement of s. 9(b) of the Wills Act 1837 is not met as the testator did not intend by his signature to give effect to the will he signed. The error was not in the wording of the will but in execution, and s. 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 does not confer jurisdiction to rectify in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed