His Royal Highness the Duke of Windsor (Deceased), Re

Where a royal will has been sealed, the court may authorise limited disclosure without reopening it to public inspection. A request for copies may be dealt with informally, without a formal application, formal evidence or a court fee, where the basis of the request is sufficiently clear. Disclosure may be justified by compelling archival or practical reasons, including identifying the person entitled to administer copyright arising from the deceased’s unpublished writings. The Attorney General need not be invited to intervene where the application seeks disclosure to an identified person or institution rather than public inspection of the will.

The application concerned the sealed will and codicil of the Duke of Windsor, who died in 1972. Letters of Administration had been granted, but the will and codicil remained sealed under an order made in 1972.

The Librarian and Assistant Keeper of the Queen’s Archives sought copies for archival purposes and to identify the current rights holder in the Duke’s papers and literary works. The application was made by letter and was considered on paper by the President of the Family Division. The central issue was whether copies could be disclosed without opening the will and codicil for public inspection.

1. Application granted. The court directed that the seals be broken, one copy of the contents be made and delivered to Oliver Urquhart Irvine in his capacity as The Librarian and Assistant Keeper of the Queen’s Archives, and the original contents then be re-sealed.
2. An application of this kind could properly be considered without requiring a formal application, formal evidence or payment of a court fee. The basis of the request was sufficiently clear from the letter. The court relied on the approach described in Re Benmusa (No 3) [2017] EWHC 966 (Fam).
3. The request was for limited disclosure to a named archival institution, not for reversal of the order so as to make the will and codicil available for public inspection. The distinction between those processes was explained in Brown v Executors of the Estate of HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and others [2008] EWCA Civ 56, particularly at paragraphs 35 to 48. Accordingly, there was no need to invite the Attorney General to intervene.
4. The two reasons advanced for disclosure were each compelling: filling a gap in the Royal Archives’ holdings and enabling identification of the person currently holding copyright in the Duke’s literary works. Either reason independently justified disclosure. The court therefore made the limited copying and re-sealing order.