willpack.co.uk
By Chris Rattigan-Smith
January 31st, 2025
The “Marley v Rawlings” case —which concerned attempts to rectify a mistake made by a couple when signing their mirror wills— serves as a reminder of the necessity for attention to detail to avoid estate disputes.
Mr and Mrs Rawlings prepared mirror wills in 1999 with a solicitor. Their wills left their estates to each other and —upon the death of the survivor— to Mr Marley.
Mr Marley was not related to the couple but they treated him as a son. Mr and Mrs Rawlings had two sons who were not provided for in the wills.
Unfortunately Mr Rawlings signed the will intended for his wife and Mrs Rawlings signed the will intended for her husband. Mrs Rawlings died and her estate passed to her husband with the error going unnoticed. It only came to light that an error had been made after Mr Rawlings’ death in 2006.
A dispute arose between Mr Marley and the two sons on whether Mr Rawlings will was valid and whether his estate should pass to Mr Marley under the will or to the two sons under intestacy.
Mr Marley brought a claim to rectify the wills under S20 Administration of Justice Act 1982.
It is possible to rectify an error in a will under S20 Administration of Justice Act 1982. If a court is satisfied that a will is so expressed that it fails to carry out the testator’s intentions —in consequence of a clerical error or of a failure to understand his instructions— it may order that the will shall be rectified so as to carry out his intentions.
The High Court initially held that Mr Rawlings did not intend by his signature to his wife’s will to give effect to it as is required by S9(b) Wills Act 1837 and —despite his intentions being clear— the court could not rectify the will due to it not meeting the requirements of S9.
