Sprackling & Ors v Sprackling & Anor

Rectification of a will under section 20(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 requires proof of the testator’s intentions, a failure by the will to give effect to them, and causation by clerical error or failure to understand instructions. The court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, applying a standard commensurate with the inherent probabilities and the formal execution of the will. Speculation about presumed intentions is insufficient. Earlier testamentary documents and surrounding circumstances may illuminate the actual instructions, but cannot replace them. Where a solicitor misunderstood clear instructions and the testator signed the resulting will without appreciating the mistake, rectification is available.

The claimants, children of the deceased, challenged provisions in his 2005 will concerning Sandilands Farm and Nyewood Farm. They contended that the will failed to record his instructions because the drafting solicitors misunderstood them. The first defendant, the deceased’s widow, disputed the claim in relation to Sandilands Farm. The court considered the deceased’s draft will, earlier testamentary documents, solicitor attendance notes, oral evidence and the circumstances surrounding execution. The central issues were the deceased’s actual intentions, whether those intentions continued until execution, and whether the errors resulted from clerical error or failure to understand instructions within section 20(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1982.

1. The claim succeeded. The court ordered rectification of the 2005 will in relation to both Sandilands Farm and Nyewood Farm.

2. Under section 20(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1982, the court must determine: the testator’s intentions; whether the will fails to carry them out; and whether that failure resulted from clerical error or failure by a person receiving the instructions to understand them. The approach stated in Re Segelman Deceased [1996] Ch 171 was adopted.

3. The civil standard is the balance of probabilities, but convincing evidence is ordinarily required because a formally executed will is inherently likely to reflect the testator’s intentions. The court must avoid speculation and assess the quality of the evidence against the inherent probabilities. The principle that omission of words may be insufficient where statutory rectification is required was recognised in Re Morris Deceased [1971] P 62.

4. The deceased’s handwritten draft will clearly indicated that his wife was to receive the farmhouse, its garden and adjoining paddocks, the fishing lake, the car park and the necessary access rights, rather than the whole of Sandilands Farm. The surrounding circumstances supported that reading but did not create a presumed intention.

5. The deceased intended Simon to receive Nyewood Farm if the deceased predeceased his brother. The contrary wording in the executed will resulted from the solicitor’s misunderstanding of the relationship between the jointly tenanted land and Nyewood Farm.

6. The deceased’s intentions had not changed before execution. He had reviewed the attendance note and was unaware that the engrossed will departed from his instructions. The errors therefore resulted from failures to understand his instructions, satisfying section 20(1).

7. Clause 3.3 was rectified to refer to Sandilands Farmhouse, including the bungalow, garden and two adjoining paddocks, together with the fishing lake and the property comprised in the fishing licence, including access to and parking at the car park. Clause 4 was rectified to provide for Nyewood Farm if the deceased predeceased his brother.