The High Court was faced with a complex case in which a drafting error would have created problems and resulted in partial intestacy.
Background:
The testator died on 27 February 2019, leaving neither a spouse nor a civil partner but a will, professionally drafted by a firm of solicitors, dated 22 November 2017. The will appointed the partners in that firm as executors and trustees.
The defendants are five beneficiaries named in the will, a great-nephew who was named as a beneficiary in a previous will but not in the later one, and another great-niece of the testator.
The will contains a residue clause (clause 7) called the trust fund which ambiguously referred to dividing the estate into four parts, yet only specified three beneficiaries. The claimants, executors of the will, sought a declaration for the true construction of the will to prevent a potential partial intestacy if the clause was construed literally.
Decision:
HHJ Paul Matthews first analysed the old law and modern approach to the construction of wills. The modern approach to the interpretation of wills is to align it, so far as possible, with that relating to commercial contracts. Following the ruling in Marley v Rawlings, the Judge noted that the primary importance is to identify the intention of the party.
The Court ruled that the reference to four parts must have been a drafting error and did not reflect the testator’s intentions. Indeed, when considering the deliberate partial intestacy, the Judge noted that “in a professionally drafted will, as this is, it is impossible to accept that the words in fact used by the testator demonstrate an intention to create a partial intestacy for the benefit of the next of kin.” He showed no intention to benefit his next of kin by way of a partial intestacy.
Even using the old route, the Court would have ignored the word ‘four’ due to its inconsistency with the rest of the clause and the will.
The judgement emphasised the importance of interpreting wills in a manner consistent with the overall document and the testator's clear intentions, thus avoiding partial intestacy. HHJ Paul Matthews noted, “The spirit is strong enough to overcome the letter”.
In any event, the Judge was allowed to rely on Section 21 of the Administration of Justice Act (AJA) 1982 due to the ambiguity in the language of the will. “The error appears to have resulted from a failure to save the final version of the draft will.”
The Judge felt it was unnecessary to address the question of rectification.
Implications:
The decision highlights the need for clear and precise drafting in wills but also that in case of ambiguity, courts will interpret the wills to reflect the true intentions of the testators by relying on the modern approach to interpretation. Even with the old route, the Judge would have been able to disregard the ambiguous part.
The fact that a will was professionally drafted also played a part in the Judge’s ruling and conclusions.