header-logo header-logo

29 January 2014
Issue: 7592 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Warning of clerical error “floodgates”

Solicitors fear more wills claims could follow Neuberger decision to rectify error

The Supreme Court’s decision to rectify a “clerical error” in a will could open the “floodgates” to further litigation, solicitors have warned.

In Marley v Rawlings [2014] UKSC 2, Mr and Mrs Rawlings had wished to benefit Terry Marley but exclude their own two sons. When their wills were executed, there was an administrative mistake and they inadvertently signed each other’s wills.

The High Court and Court of Appeal held that the Rawlings’ estate would pass through the intestacy rules to their two sons. However, the Supreme Court overturned their decisions and held that the will could be rectified to allow Marley to benefit.

James Lister, associate at Charles Russell, says: “Commentators will be inclined to say that this is a further example of the Supreme Court working hard to find a way to ‘do the right thing’, as they did in the landmark decision in Prest v Petrodel [2013] UKSC 34 last year. 

“However, the judgment also brings in a new area of uncertainly to what was previously a very rigidly applied area of law. The risk of a ‘floodgates’ scenario for those seeking to continue to widen the notion of ‘clerical error’ is clear and we are likely to see more claims being brought in relation to seeking to uphold or amend wills which would not have previously been possible. The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision could yet be far reaching for future claims.” 

Delivering the lead judgment, Lord Neuberger said: “Whether the document in question is a commercial contract or a will, the aim is to identify the intention of the party or parties to the document by interpreting the words used in their documentary, factual and commercial context.”

Matthew Duncan, partner at Kingsley Napley, says: “The concept of ‘clerical error’ has now been a given a wider meaning by the Supreme Court. To date, it was thought only typing errors could be fixed. This has now been extended to include mistakes arising from office work of a routine nature such as preparing, filing, sending, and organising the actual execution of a will."

 

Issue: 7592 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

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
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
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
back-to-top-scroll