header-logo header-logo

21 May 2025
Issue: 8117 / Categories: Legal News , Wills & Probate , Technology , Court of Protection
printer mail-detail

Testamentary freedom in a digital era

The Law Commission has proposed increased protection against undue influence, an end to the ‘automatic revocation’ rule and the introduction of electronic wills

Its report, ‘Modernising wills law’, and draft Bill, published last week, would overhaul the legal framework established by the Wills Act 1837. It recommends electronic wills be valid, subject to ‘an additional formality requirement’. Other changes would reduce the minimum age from 18 to 16, and increasing protections for those who are coerced into making a will.

The commissioners expressed concern that the revocation of wills on marriage or civil partnership was motivating ‘predatory marriages’ where someone marries in order to inherit. They recommended abolishing the rule.

They also suggest giving judges the power to order a will be considered legally valid in ‘exceptional circumstances’ where the deceased’s intentions are clear but formal requirements have not been met. On the other hand, they warned the law does not provide enough protection against coercion. Where formalities have been complied with but there are reasonable grounds to suspect coercion, they recommend it be possible for courts to infer undue influence.

Hayley Robinson, private wealth disputes specialist, Stevens & Bolton, broadly welcomed the proposals but warned there could be a spike in disputes—both regarding the requirements of electronic wills and on the meaning of ‘exceptional circumstances’ where courts approve formally invalid wills.

Robinson said: ‘These proposals rip up nearly two centuries of learning on the creation of wills, mostly for good reason.

‘Particularly welcome is the recommendation to change the huge unfairness sometimes created by the automatic revocation of a will by marriage.’

Robinson urged ‘significant caution’ on electronic wills ‘as one of the few benefits of the current requirements for executing a will are the formalities creating a degree of protection from good old paper and ink’.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll