Rectification & Establishing the testator's intention (The interpretation of Wills)- FS Flashcards
(30 cards)
What is the primary objective of the court when interpreting a will?
The court’s primary objective is to determine the testator’s intention by reading the will as a whole, applying the ordinary meaning of words along with context and common sense.
What is the default rule regarding the use of extrinsic evidence in interpreting a will?
The default rule is that courts do not consider extrinsic (external) evidence to determine the testator’s intention unless the will contains ambiguity or meaningless provisions.
Under what statutory provision can extrinsic evidence be admitted when interpreting a will?
Section 21 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 allows extrinsic evidence to be admitted in cases of ambiguity or meaningless wording in a will.
What are the three specific scenarios under Section 21 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 where extrinsic evidence may be used?
Extrinsic evidence is permitted where
(1) any part of the will is meaningless,
(2) it contains ambiguous language, or
(3) it becomes ambiguous in light of surrounding circumstances (excluding direct statements of the testator’s intention).
How is ambiguity classified for the purposes of admitting extrinsic evidence in will interpretation?
Ambiguity may be intrinsic (within the wording) or extrinsic (arising from application in light of external facts), both of which may justify the use of extrinsic evidence under Section 21.
What happens if a provision in a will is unclear and no extrinsic evidence is admitted?
The gift or provision may fail for uncertainty, meaning it will be invalid and excluded from the distribution of the estate
What is the general approach of the court in understanding vague terms such as “money” in a will?
Courts will apply context and common sense to derive the testator’s likely intention behind such vague terms, considering their broader or narrower potential meanings.
Why is the context in which a will was drafted important in interpreting ambiguous terms?
Because the context may clarify the testator’s intended meaning where a literal reading of the words does not make sense or leads to uncertainty.
How does the court approach terms that become ambiguous in light of external facts known at the time of execution?
The court may allow extrinsic evidence to resolve the ambiguity if the surrounding facts demonstrate that the literal interpretation is not what the testator likely intended.
Why might a term like “all to mother” be interpreted differently depending on context?
If the testator’s mother was deceased at the time of execution and this was known to the testator, the term may be ambiguous and allow for extrinsic evidence to show another intended recipient.
Can the testator’s habits in referring to individuals influence the court’s interpretation of ambiguous terms?
Yes, if extrinsic evidence shows a consistent habit of referring to someone in a specific way (e.g., referring to a spouse as “Dad”), the court may take this into account under Section 21.
What is the key difference between direct evidence of intention and evidence of surrounding circumstances under Section 21?
Direct evidence of intention is generally not admissible, but evidence showing the ambiguity in light of surrounding circumstances (excluding direct statements of intent) is allowed.
What is the test for determining whether a will’s provision is “meaningless”?
A provision is meaningless if the words used cannot sensibly be interpreted to give effect to any coherent testamentary intention, even with contextual aid.
When would a court likely reject the use of extrinsic evidence to clarify a will’s provision?
If the provision is not ambiguous or meaningless on its face or in context, and can be understood using the ordinary meaning of the words, the court will not admit extrinsic evidence.
How does the principle illustrated in Thorn v Dickens (1906) support the use of extrinsic evidence?
It shows that when a will’s wording appears clear on its face but contradicts known facts (e.g., naming a deceased individual), extrinsic evidence may clarify the testator’s actual intention based on habitual references.
What is the general rule regarding judicial interpretation of a will?
The court must interpret a will based on its wording and has no general power to rewrite it based on opinions or beliefs about what the testator may have intended.
Under what legal provision may a court rectify the contents of a will?
Section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 provides the court with a limited power to rectify a will that fails to reflect the testator’s intentions due to a clerical error or a failure to understand instructions.
What are the two grounds upon which rectification of a will may be granted under Section 20?
A will may be rectified if it fails to reflect the testator’s intention because of (1) a clerical error or (2) a failure to understand the testator’s instructions.
What constitutes a “clerical error” under Section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982?
A clerical error refers to a mistake in writing or omitting something by accident, such as misnaming a beneficiary or miscopying the testator’s instructions.
What does “failure to understand instructions” mean in the context of rectification?
It refers to a situation where the person drafting the will misunderstands the testator’s directions, resulting in provisions that do not reflect the testator’s intentions.
How does the court determine the testator’s original intention for the purposes of rectification?
The court relies on evidence such as notes, draft wills, or testimony that clearly establish what the testator intended before the error occurred.
What is the effect of a successful application for rectification under Section 20?
The will is amended by court order to reflect what the testator originally intended, effectively correcting the error.
Why is the power of rectification described as “narrow”?
Because it is only available in limited circumstances—specifically when the will fails to reflect the testator’s intentions due to clerical error or misunderstanding of instructions—and requires clear evidence of intent.
Can a beneficiary who was incorrectly omitted due to a clerical error be added back into the will by rectification?
Yes, if clear evidence supports that their omission was the result of a clerical mistake and not the testator’s intention.
