Guthrie v Morel & ors

On a summary judgment application concerning the construction of a will, the court may decide a short point of construction where the evidence is sufficient and a trial would serve no useful purpose. A will is interpreted objectively, by identifying the meaning of its words in their documentary and factual context, in the same way as other documents. Where a will contains a meaningless or facially or circumstantially ambiguous provision within section 21(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1982, evidence of the testator’s actual intention may also assist interpretation. A court should not preserve a partial intestacy by adopting an implausible reading where the will, read as a whole, was intended to dispose of the estate.

The claimant sought a declaration concerning a bequest in the deceased’s will of a property described as 87 Loma Del Rey, Spain. The deceased owned properties at 81 and 33 Loma Del Rey, but no property at number 87. The claimant contended that 87 was a mistake for 81, while the defendants argued that the wording created a partial intestacy. The claimant applied for summary judgment under Part 24 of the CPR. She abandoned reliance on evidence of the deceased’s statements and accepted that rectification under section 20(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 did not require determination if construction failed.

1. Summary judgment. The court applied the principles summarised in Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch). The court must assess whether the opposing case has a realistic prospect of success, avoid a mini-trial, and consider evidence reasonably expected to be available at trial. However, where the issue is a short point of law or construction and the evidence is sufficient, the court should decide it. Mere speculation that further evidence may emerge is insufficient.
2. Status of the document. Probate had been granted and was not challenged. It was not open to the administrators to contend that the document was not a will at all. The deceased was to be taken as intending the natural consequences of writing, signing and witnessing the document, absent something extraordinary.
3. Construction of the will. Applying Marley v Rawlings [2014] UKSC 2, the will was to be construed as a document, by identifying the meaning of its words in their documentary and factual context. Section 21 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 confirms that approach and permits extrinsic evidence, including evidence of actual intention, where the statutory conditions are met. The claimant’s evidence of statements was not relied upon, so the issue was determined from the document and surrounding circumstances.
4. The will was intended to deal with the deceased’s entire estate. The reference to 87 Loma Del Rey was therefore intended to identify the only relevant property not otherwise disposed of, namely 81 Loma Del Rey. The defendants’ contrary arguments were speculation without substance and did not establish a realistic prospect of success at trial.
5. The application succeeded. There was no need for a trial because it would serve no purpose and would not be a proportionate use of resources.