Clerical error led to Supreme Court for invalid will
Whitebrook Wills - Wednesday, November 12, 2014
In the case of Marley v Rawlings [2014], a clerical error led to a couple's wills being declared invalid. Mr and Mrs Rawlings both signed wills, leaving everything to each other, and a gift to Terry Marley, who they had treated as their own son. The couple's biological sons were not included in the wills.
The problem arose, when the surviving partner, Mr Marley, died. It was only discovered at this point, that the solicitor who had drawn up the wills, had made a serious error. He had, in fact, mistakenly given each person when they were alive, the other's will to sign, effectively making both of the wills invalid and therefore in essence, leaving everything to the couple's two biological sons.
Predictably, a drawn out legal battle ensued, with the Court of Appeal still ruling that the wills were invalid. It was not until a few days ago that the Supreme Court finally decreed that the wills could be upheld.
Why? There are detailed criteria given in section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982, to ascertain whether a will is a valid document. It was initially thought that the Rawlings' wills did not fulfil this criteria. However, it was finally decided that Mr Rawlings had made his intentions and wishes abundantly clear and that it was of course a clerical error that had caused the problem.
"Clerical error" is also discussed in section 20, but this term remains very ambiguous, usually relating to incorrect text. It may be time then, for the terminology in this section of the lawbooks to be made much clearer, so that individuals such as Terry Marley, are not left with a hefty legal bill, whilst legal professionals try to decipher and interpret the law.
