REVIEWS
| Date | 01 July 1978 |
| Published date | 01 July 1978 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1978.tb00813.x |
REVIEWS
PARRY
AND
CLARK:
THE
LAW
OF
SUCCESSION,
7th edition
by
J.
B.
CLARK. [London: Sweet
&
Maxwell Ltd. i-lxxi and
487
pp.
€13.50
(hard cover).
€9.50
(paperback).]
ALTHOUGH this book is presented as
a
new edition of Sir David Hughes Parry’s
well-known text on
Succession,
Professor Clark has entirely reshaped and
rewritten the original book and has virtually provided
a
new text on the
subject. The book
is
intended for the use of students reading for
a
law degree
or the Law Society’s Final Examination and
as
such it is excellent and can be
recommended with complete confidence. The law is comprehensively and
clearly stated in an authoritative way and the author has particularly concen-
trated on the more difficult or obscure aspects of the subject. This commend-
able approach has perhaps resulted in
a
shorter presentation of the more
straightforward topics. Thus, although the law relating to formalities
of
wills
is adequately presented, students might find a fuller and more critical dis-
cussion
of
the topic useful and some discussion
of
the purposes of the rules
would have been desirable
so
that the student could assess the effectiveness
of the
1837
Act. Cases such as
Re Groffman
119691 1
W.L.R.
733,
and
Re
Coiling
“721
1
W.L.R.
1440,
show
that
the
1837
rules
occasionally invali-
date
“
genuine
”
wills and the extent to which the rules prevent forgery is by
the nature of things pure conjecture (see Law Commission’s
W.P.
No.
4,
1966).
Although the
1837
rules seem entrenched, the Law Commission
(supra)
have
considered alternative methods of formalising wills and the problems presented
by systems of registration or deposit have been discussed. In
1966
they thought
that public opinion would not tolerate compulsory recourse to
a
solicitor in
order to make
a
will. This is no doubt the case but there is certainly
a
case,
in the public interest, for
a
solicitor’s monopoly over wills coupled with
a
simple registration system, similar perhaps to continental systems involving
notaries. In order to encourage students to think critically, Professor Clark
could perhaps have introduced some comparative points on the formalities of
wills with advantage.
A further area where the law-reforming agencies have recently considered
the law of succession is the subject of rectification of wills. Professor Clark
notes these recommendations but again one would have hoped for
a
fuller and
more critical discussion. The decisions of
Re
Morris
119711
P.
62
and
Re
Reynette-James
[1975]
3
All
E.R.
1037
illustrate the absurd consequences
which follow from the absence of
a
simple power to rectify patent clerical
errors. Latey
J.
in
Re
Morris,
thought that the proposition that the court has
no power to rectify wills by adding words to the instrument
“
. .
.
has been
so
clearly stated judicially and for
so
long that it is not open to question in
this court and can only be changed by legislation or, possibly by
a
higher
tribunal.” Although,
“If
the matter were
res integra
it might not
. .
.
be
a
hopeless argument.” The matter was in fact at that time under consideration
by the Law Reform Committee and opinion was canvassed in
a
Working
Paper circulated by the committee in
1969.
In their nineteenth report
(1973
Cmnd.
5301)
the Committee recommended that
“
The equitable doctrine of
rectification should be applied to wills and be available wherever it can be
dearly shown not only that the will does not contain the wording intended
by the testator but also what the substance of the wording was.”
So
far no
legislative action has been taken on this recommendation despite the further
illustration of the unsatisfactory nature of the present law, provided by
Re
Reynette-James
where Templeman
J.
concluded:
“
The result is not satis-
factory but will perhaps encourage
a
further study of the recommendations
which have been made from time to time that rectification of
a
will should
be allowed on the same terms
as
rectification of other instruments, with
perhaps the added safeguard of written contemporaneous evidence supporting
49
1
To continue reading
Request your trial