Boswell & Ors v Lawson & Ors

Rectification of a will under Administration of Justice Act 1982, section 20, requires the will as expressed to fail to carry out the testator’s intentions because of a clerical error or failure to understand instructions. The statutory power is not engaged where the will correctly records those instructions but a solicitor’s later explanatory letter misstates its effect. Intention may be assessed from the whole evidential history, including earlier and later conduct and correspondence. The appeal was dismissed because the will reflected the intended disposition and the error lay only in the letter.

Three daughters challenged their father’s will after their mother’s death. The will gave the father’s half share in the family property to their brother and divided the residue equally among the four children. They sought rectification under Administration of Justice Act 1982, section 20, arguing that the solicitor’s explanatory letter showed a different intended disposition. The Newcastle-upon-Tyne County Court found the claim insufficiently established and refused to extend time. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the error lay in the wills or only in the later explanatory letter.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld the refusal to rectify the will and the refusal to extend time for the claim. Lloyd LJ gave the principal judgment; Wilson LJ and Jacob LJ agreed.
2. Section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 applies where the will, as expressed, fails to carry out the testator’s intentions because of a clerical error or a failure to understand instructions. It does not apply where the will correctly records the instructions but a subsequent explanatory document contains the error.
3. The court assessed the evidence as a whole. The deceased had previously intended that the property should pass to his son. The 1990 arrangements were motivated by inheritance-tax considerations and preserved that result. His later explanation of his wife’s will, and his statement that his own will had the same effect, were consistent with the will as executed.
4. The solicitor’s letter could be explained as a slip in dictation or typing. The deceased’s reply, stating that he and his wife were satisfied with the arrangements, did not establish that the will was wrongly drafted. He may have relied on the actual copy will, recently explained at execution, without examining the later letter in sufficient detail to notice the discrepancy.
5. Because the critical issue concerned inferences from the correspondence, the appellate court was in as good a position as the judge to assess that issue. The judge’s other factual findings were supported by the evidence. On the balance of probabilities, the wills correctly reflected the instructions, so the only error was in the explanatory letter and the statutory condition for rectification was absent.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision below: [2011] EWCA Civ 452.
2. Newcastle-upon-Tyne County Court: Mr Recorder Holmes found the rectification claim insufficiently established and refused to extend time for bringing it.