Curati v Perdoni & Anor

A later will does not revoke an earlier will by implication merely because it appoints a universal or sole heir. Implied revocation requires a logical inconsistency between the successive wills. Where the later will is silent about an event expressly addressed by the earlier will, and both instruments can operate consistently, the earlier provision remains effective. The law governing construction is the law intended by the testator, subject to the presumption that the law of the testator’s domicile at execution applies unless sufficient contrary intention is shown.

Pierluigi Curati made an English will in 1980 leaving his English estate to his wife, with a gift over to her niece and nephew if she predeceased him. In 1994 he made a short holographic will in Italy, in Italian, naming his wife his erede universale. His wife died before him.

The respondents claimed under the 1980 will. The appellant, the deceased’s sister, claimed that the 1994 will revoked it and produced an intestacy. The High Court held that the deceased was domiciled in England and that the 1994 will did not revoke the earlier will: [2011] EWHC 3442 (Ch). The appeal concerned the governing law and implied revocation.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld the conclusion that the 1980 will remained effective in relation to the English estate.
2. The law governing construction is the law intended by the testator. The presumed governing law is the law of domicile at execution, but sufficient contrary intention may rebut that presumption. The use of Italian language and terminology, execution in Italy and Italian citizenship did not do so here.
3. A later will without express revocation revokes an earlier will by implication only where the instruments disclose a logical inconsistency showing that the earlier dispositions were not intended to remain operative.
4. The 1994 will gave the wife the whole estate but was silent about her predeceasing the testator. The 1980 will expressly addressed that contingency. The wills could therefore stand together, and there was no basis for inferring an intention to create an intestacy or revoke the gift over. Speculation that the deceased had forgotten the earlier will was impermissible.
5. In Re Hawksley’s Settlements, Black v Tidy illustrated that references to a later will as the last will or to an earlier will as cancelled did not themselves establish complete revocation; inconsistency was decisive.

Lord Justice Tomlinson gave the judgment. Lord Justice Munby and Lord Justice Pill agreed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal dismissed.
2. High Court of Justice, Chancery Division: judgment for the respondents, [2011] EWHC 3442 (Ch).