Re Williams, decd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1985 |
| Date | 1985 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Will - Construction - Intention of testator - Beneficiaries listed in three numbered groups - Home-made will not indicating purpose of grouping - Letter of instructions to solicitor to prepare new will - Whether letter admissible as extrinsic evidence to resolve ambiguity -
Seven days before she died, the testatrix executed a short home-made will in which she listed the names of 22 individuals with their addresses and three charitable organisations or purposes. She divided the names into three groups, unequal in size and numbered 1, 2 and 3, but without words of gift or any indication that they were to receive a proportion of the estate. Each group included relatives, statutory next of kin and individuals who were not relatives; the charitable gifts were included in groups 1 and 3. The will concluded with a provision that if any of the beneficiaries should predecease her, their share of the estate should be added to the residue. On 29 March 1983, the day before the testatrix had executed the will, she wrote to her solicitors instructing them to prepare a new will for her. She informed them that she had divided the beneficiaries into three categories and wished that “the first, for example, should receive, say £2,000 each, the second £1,000 each, and the third £500.” The plaintiffs, as the executrices named in the will, issued an originating summons asking the court to determine if there was an effective disposition of the estate at all, and if so the division to be made of the estate between the three groups or the individuals therein.
On the hearing of the summons, the testatrix's letter of 29 March 1983 having been admitted as extrinsic evidence of her intention under section 21(1)(b) of the Administration of Justice Act 1982F1: —
Held, (1) that, although there were no words of gift, the appointment of executrices, followed by a list of names and then by words making it plain that those included in the list were to be beneficiaries indicated that the will contained an effective disposition of the whole estate; but that the language of the will was on its face ambiguous in the use of numerals to divide the beneficiaries into three groups and, therefore, the letter of 29 March 1983 was admissible under section 21(1)(b) of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 for the purpose of construing the will as being extrinsic evidence of the testatrix's intention in grouping the beneficiaries (post, pp. 908E–G, G–H, H–909C).
(2) That the testatrix's letter instructing her solicitors to prepare a new will did not assist in construing the words used in the will and, therefore, there being no sufficient indication in the will as to the division between the three groups intended by the testatrix, the gift must be construed as a gift to all 25 beneficiaries equally and as tenants in common (post, pp. 911E–F, 912C–H).
No cases are referred to in the judgment.
The following cases were cited in argument:
Barrance, In re [
Harrison, In re (
Robertson v. Fraser (
Salusbury v. Denton (
Stevens, decd., In re [
Turner, In re [
ORIGINATING SUMMONS
By an originating summons dated 3 July 1984 and amended on 2 November 1984, the plaintiffs, Denise May Wiles and Kathleen Joyce Muir, as executrices of the will of Enid Florence Emily Williams, otherwise Enid Florence Emily Cook, made on 30 March 1983, sought (1) the determination by the court whether, upon the true construction of the will of the testatrix, her estate (other than the subject matter of the gift contained in the final sentence of the will) (a) was divisible between the 22 named individuals, Hitchin Hospital, the National Trust and cancer research; or (b) was divisible into three equal parts to correspond with the three groups mentioned in the will, each part being divisible in equal shares between the members of that group; or (c) was divisible between the 22 individuals named in the will, the Hitchin Hospital, the National Trust and cancer research in some other and if so, what, shares; or (d) devolved as on the partial intestacy of the testatrix; (2) that the Attorney-General be at liberty to take such steps as he might be advised to ascertain Her Majesty's pleasure as to the disposal of the subject matter of the gift in the will to or for cancer research; (3) an order that the first-named defendant, Barbara Magdin, might be appointed to represent Hitchin Hospital, the National Trust and all individuals named in the will who were not parties to the proceedings or next of kin of the testatrix entitled to share in the distribution of her estate on any intestacy or any partial intestacy, other than John Kings and George Cook; (4) an order that the second-named defendant, John Ernest Kings, might be appointed to represent George Cook and Eve Darcy, the fifthe defendants; (5) an order that the third-named defendant, the Attorney-General, might be appointed to represent all the testatrix's next of kin interested in the distribution of her estate on any intestacy or partial intestacy; (6) if and so far as might be necessary, administration of the estate of the testatrix; (7) that provision might be made for the costs of the application, and (8) further or other relief.
The facts are stated in the judgment.
Geoffrey Jaques for the plaintiffs.
Mark Blackett-Ord for group 1 beneficiaries.
Roger Kaye for group 2 beneficiaries.
Kenneth Farrow for the next of kin.
Peter Crampin for the Attorney-General.
Frank Hinks for group 3 beneficiaries.
10 December. NICHOLLS J. read the following judgment. Mrs. Enid Florence Emily Williams died on 6 April 1983. She executed a short, home-made will seven days earlier, on 30 March 1983. The will began:
“This is the last will and testament of Enid F. E. Williams of 94, Fairview Road, Stevenage, my executrix being Denise Wiles, 41, Barclay Crescent and Kathleen Muir, 92, Fairview Road.”
There followed a list of the names of 22 individuals with their addresses, and of three organisations or purposes: Hitchin Hospital, the National Trust, and cancer research. The 25 names were divided into three groups, prefaced respectively by the numbers 1, 2 and 3. The groups were unequal in size: group 1 consisted of eight individuals, including the two executrices, and cancer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mr Graham Slattery & Mrs Ruby Victoria Jagger v Mr Arthur Jagger & Others
...to decide the point on the true construction of the will, referred to Mr Justice Nicholls's judgment in the earlier case of In re Williams decd [1985] 1 WLR 905 where Mr Justice Nicholls was recorded to have taken an orthodox view of interpretation. Mr Lakin referred me to Lord Neuberger's ......
-
Re Murphie, deceased (Hind v Murphie) 1992 Civil Appeal No. 1
...Nurphie, deceased) Defendants Miss Glare Hatcher for the Plaintiff Mr. Trevor Moniz for the Defendants Re Williams, Wiles v MadginUNK [1985] 1 All ER 964 Re Cook, Beck v GrantELR [1948] 1 Ch 216 Gyett v Williams (1862) 2 J&H 1129 Re Gare, Filmer v Carter [1951] 2 A;; ER 8631 Perrin v Morgan......
-
Marley v Rawlings (No 2)
...him to rely on Mr Rawlings's subjective intention, because his argument is still one based on interpretation. This point was made in In re Williams decd [1985] 1 WLR 905, 911G-H, where Nicholls J seems to have taken an orthodox view of interpretation. He said that "if, however liberal may ......
-
The Right Hon Gloria Wesley, Dowager Countess Bathurst v (1) Michael Chantler
...appropriate to consider extrinsic evidence, including the testator's intention. First, and as submitted by Mr Moeran QC referring to In re Williams decd [1985] 1 WLR 905, extrinsic evidence cannot support the attribution of a meaning which, notwithstanding a liberal approach to construction......
-
Table of Cases
...Williams v Williams [2003] EWHC 742 (Ch), [2003] WTLR 1371, [2003] All ER (D) 403 (Feb), ChD 82 Williams (Deceased), Re; Wiles v Madgin [1985] 1 WLR 905, [1985] 1 All ER 964, 129 Sol Jo 469, ChD 122, 123 Wilson v Beddard (1841) 12 Sim 28, 10 LJ Ch 305, 5 Jur 624 27 Wingrove v Wingrove (1885......
-
Rectification
...his/her intentions or assessing the value of the estate when making a home-made will. In Re Williams (Deceased); Wiles v Madgin [1985] 1 WLR 905, Nicholls J (as he then was) said (at 911–912): In passing, I note that there is no claim for rectification in the present case. It was suggested ......
-
Construction and Interpretation of Wills
...intention is admissible to attempt to resolve it. On the question of admissibility of extrinsic evidence, in Re Williams (Deceased) [1985] 1 WLR 905, the judge emphasised that extrinsic evidence, in this case a letter written by the testator to her solicitor containing instructions, is only......