will in UK Law

Moreover the fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all the elements of the doctrine.

In English law the rights of a testamentary legatee in the unadministered estate of a testator are well settled: see Lord Sudeley v. Attorney General [1897] A.C. 11 and Commissioner of Stamp Duties (Queensland) v. Livingston [1965] A.C. 694. A legatee's right is to have the estate duly administered by the personal representatives in accordance with law. But during the period of administration the legatee has no legal or equitable interest in the assets comprised in the estate.

In deciding what provision should be made in a will to be executed on P's behalf and which, ex hypothesi, will only have effect after he is dead, what are P's best interests? Mr Boyle stressed the principle of adult autonomy; and said that P's best interests would be served simply by giving effect to his wishes. In my judgment the decision maker is entitled to take into account, in assessing what is in P's best interests, how he will be remembered after his death.

When interpreting a contract, the court is concerned to find the intention of the party or parties, and it does this by identifying the meaning of the relevant words, (a) in the light of (i) the natural and ordinary meaning of those words, (ii) the overall purpose of the document, (iii) any other provisions of the document, (iv) the facts known or assumed by the parties at the time that the document was executed, and (v) common sense, but (b) ignoring subjective evidence of any party's intentions.

What is involved is simply the satisfaction of the test of knowledge and approval, but the court insists that, given that suspicion, it must be the more clearly shown that the deceased knew and approved the contents of the will so that the suspicion is dispelled. But in a case where the circumstances are such as to arouse the suspicion of the court the propounder must prove affirmatively that knowledge and approval so as to satisfy the court that the will represents the wishes of the deceased.

However, it is instructive to consider the recent decision of Lloyd J. in Hart v Dabbs, unreported, 6 July 2000, as illustrating the properly objective approach of the court in a case where the suspicion of the court has been aroused. In that case the propounder of the will made by a wealthy 74 year old man was a person who was alleged to have killed the deceased unlawfully.

The question, I think, is this: Was Mr Parkon the morning of the 30th May, 1949, capable of understanding the nature of the contract into which he was entering, or was his mental condition such that he- was incapable of understanding it? Now, in order to ascertain the nature of the contract of marriage a man must be mentally capable of appreciating that it involves the responsibilities normally attaching to marriage.