Harte, Re

In construing a poorly drafted will, the court may use extrinsic evidence where the statutory conditions for admitting it are met. The residuary estate ordinarily includes all property remaining after debts, funeral, testamentary and administration expenses, and inheritance tax. Different expressions such as “one part” and “one tenth” may bear the same meaning where the will’s structure and apparent intention support that construction. Misnamed charitable beneficiaries may be identified by accurate registered charity numbers. Rectification is available where the will fails to give effect to the testator’s instructions because of a clerical error or failure to understand those instructions, but the intended instructions must themselves be established.

The executors of Florence Rosemary Harte’s estate sought declarations as to the construction of her will and, alternatively, rectification. The will contained inconsistent references to “one part” and “one tenth”, named a hospital by a colloquial description, misnamed several charities despite giving their registered charity numbers, and referred to a non-existent “West Berkshire Ambulance Hospital”.

The claim was issued under the Part 8 procedure. Potential beneficiaries and statutory next of kin were notified under CPR 19.8A, but none joined the proceedings. The central issues were the meaning of the residuary estate and the gifts, and whether the final gift could be rectified by reference to the available instructions and notes.

The court granted declarations and directed distribution of the residuary estate in ten equal shares, subject to one tenth devolving on partial intestacy because Douglas Victor Harris had predeceased the testatrix.

1. Residuary estate. The expression “residuary estate” comprised all the testatrix’s personal and real property after payment of debts, funeral, testamentary and administration expenses, and inheritance tax.
2. Extrinsic evidence and construction. Section 21 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 was engaged because parts of the will were meaningless or ambiguous. The court could therefore consider the solicitors’ notes and instructions. “One part” in clauses 4.2 to 4.5 meant “one tenth part”. The will’s structure contained ten gifts, and no alternative meaning for “part” was apparent.
3. Misnomer. The gifts to Newbury Hospital, Macmillan Cancer Fund, Guide Dogs for the Blind and Guide Dogs for the Deaf were construed by reference to the surrounding address or the accurate registered charity numbers. They therefore took effect for the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, Macmillan Cancer Support, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and Hearing Dogs for Deaf People respectively.
4. Rectification. “West Berkshire Ambulance Hospital” was a nonsense description and there was no such body. Applying section 20, the court found both that the will failed to carry out the testatrix’s instructions and what those instructions were: she intended to benefit an air rescue or air ambulance service serving West Berkshire. The gift was rectified to refer to the Thames Valley and Chiltern Air Ambulance Trust. The evidence left it uncertain whether the error was clerical or resulted from failure to understand instructions, but either statutory ground was sufficient.