Emma Coulson v Ronald Ivor James Paul

For the purposes of interpreting a will, an adopted person is treated as the child of the adopter and not of the natural parent, subject to any contrary indication. Extrinsic evidence may assist where the will is ambiguous in the circumstances, but it cannot overcome the statutory status imposed by adoption where no contrary indication appears. Rectification requires proof that the will failed to give effect to the testator’s intentions because of a clerical error or failure to understand instructions.

The claimant, who had been adopted, claimed under her grandfather’s will. The will provided for the testator’s estate to pass to his son and, if his son predeceased him leaving a child or children, to that child or those children.

The claimant argued that the reference included her because she had re-established a relationship with her natural father and was treated as his daughter. Alternatively, she sought rectification. The defendant, the testator’s other son, disputed both claims. The issues were the proper interpretation of the will and whether the statutory conditions for rectification were satisfied.

1. Interpretation. The claim under the will was dismissed. The phrase “child or children” had to be interpreted in accordance with section 67(6) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The claimant was legally the child of her adoptive father and not of her natural father. The phrase was neither meaningless nor facially ambiguous.
2. Extrinsic evidence. The court was prepared to treat the phrase as potentially ambiguous in light of the surrounding circumstances, and admitted the relevant extrinsic evidence under section 21 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982. That evidence did not establish a contrary indication. Evidence that the claimant’s natural father later regarded her as his daughter did not show that the testator regarded her as the daughter of his son. The absence of provision for the defendant was relevant, but did not alter the statutory interpretation.
3. Rectification. The requirements of section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 were not met. The court was not satisfied that the will failed to carry out the testator’s intentions because of a clerical error or a failure to understand his instructions.
4. The court applied the approach to interpreting wills stated in Marley v Rawlings, treating the exercise as analogous to contractual interpretation and considering the natural and ordinary meaning, the document as a whole, relevant facts known or assumed at execution, and common sense, while excluding subjective evidence of intention except where permitted by statute.
5. The parties were invited to agree and file a draft order within 14 days, with written submissions on consequential matters that could not be agreed.