LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
In Catling v. Catling, the 2007 will of Mrs Catling was declared invalid due to her lack of mental capacity caused by dementia. The court found the 2007 will was a radical departure from her earlier wills and that she did not understand the changes. Medical evidence was pivotal highlighting necessity of mental capacity for a valid will, per Banks v Goodfellow (1870).
The Supreme Court in Marley v Rawlings (2014) ruled that a wrongly executed will can be rectified under section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 to reflect the testator’s true intentions. Despite formal defects under section 9 of the Wills Act 1837, a “clerical error” like signing the wrong will does not prevent rectification. This decision supports prioritising the testator’s intent over strict formalities in probate disputes.
The Finance Bill 2013 proposes changes affecting Bereaved Minors Trusts, established under the Finance Act 2006 to benefit minors under 18. New rules would restrict trustees’ powers under Section 32 of the Trustee Act 1925, potentially requiring court intervention and increasing costs to the trust. Such changes could disadvantage bereaved minors by reducing their inheritance through added tax liabilities and administration expenses.
Disputes often arise when a person leaves more than one will, due to changes in financial circumstances or beneficiaries. Courts decide which will is valid by examining the testator’s intentions and the governing law. Clear, certain, and carefully considered wills help avoid such conflicts. Lexlaw provides expert advice to resolve probate disputes and protect your interests. Contact Lexlaw for professional assistance with contested wills.