‘David Mtichell, member of No5 Chambers Commercial & Chancery Group, recently gave a talk titled ‘Rectification of Wills Following Marley v Rawlings’ at the No5 Estates Seminar held on 25th September.’
No. 5 Chambers, 15th October 2014
Source: www.no5.com
‘This case continues to generate interesting discussion in the Supreme Court – this time on the issue of costs.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 6th October 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Marley v Rawlings (No 2); [2014] UKSC 51; [2014] WLR (D) 402
‘Where a mistake made by a solicitor in the execution of a will required its validity to be determined in litigation, funded in the High Court and the Court of Appeal on a traditional basis and in the Supreme Court under contingency fee agreements, the proper order for costs in the High Court and the Court of Appeal was that the solicitor’s insurers should pay the costs of both the successful claimant and the unsuccessful defendants, thereby short-circuiting the approach that, on a reasonable, but unsuccessful, challenge to the validity of a will, the costs should be borne by the estate.’
WLR Daily, 18th September 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court today ordered a solicitor’s insurer to pay the bulk of both parties’ costs over a wills dispute arising when a married couple each signed the wrong draft of a will.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 18th September 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
MacLeod and others v Gold Harp Properties Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1084; [2014] WLR (D) 345
‘Paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002 permitted the rectification of the land register where there were two competing derivative interests, the first of which had been mistakenly omitted or removed from the register, the second of which had been created during the period of mistaken deregistration and before the rectification of the register by the restoration of the first interest, so that the priority of the interests was changed in order that the first interest upon restoration was given the priority it would have had but for the mistake.’
WLR Daily, 29th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Church Comrs for England v Hampshire County Council [2014] EWCA Civ 634; [2014] WLR (D) 207
‘Regulation 5(4) of the Commons (Registration of Town or Village Greens) (Interim Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2007 provided a means for curing deficiencies in an application to register land as a town or village green under section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 and once that application was so cured it was treated as duly made on the date on which the original defective application was lodged. Whether an applicant had been afforded a “reasonable opportunity” by the registration authority to put a defective application in order, for the purposes of regulation 5(4), was a question of law for the court and was not reviewable only on Wednesbury grounds.’
WLR Daily, 14th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Panopticon has previously reported on the novel and important data protection case Steinmetz and Others v Global Witness [2014] EWHC 1186 (Ch). The High Court (Henderson J) has now given a judgment on a procedural point which will set the shape for this litigation.’
Panopticon, 30th April 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘An erroneous decision to register land as a village green is catastrophic for the owner. Once
registered as a green, the land is effectively sterilised for ever. To put right a mistaken registration is not at all easy. This is for two reasons.’
New Square Chambers, 7th February 2014
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has allowed the removal of two pieces of land, that were incorrectly registered as town or village greens (TVGs), from the register preventing their redevelopment, despite the landowners’ lengthy delays in applying for the rectifications.’
OUT-LAW.com, 7th February 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Would it be a fantasy too far to imagine that the ghost of the late Lord Denning has been whispering in the ears of their Lordships Neuberger, Clarke, Sumption, Carnwath and Hodge? Possibly not, given the Denning-esque outcome in the wills “mix-up” case of Marley v Rawlings and another. The facts of the case were simple. Mr and Mrs Rawlings wanted mirror wills leaving everything to each other and thereafter to Terry Marley who they treated as a son. On 17 May 1999 their solicitor visited them with drafted wills for the purpose of execution. However, Mr Rawlings executed Mrs Rawlings’ will and vice versa. Both wrongly executed wills were witnessed by their solicitor and a secretary. Each will correctly used such relevant words as “his”, “her”, “testator” and “testatrix”.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 6th February 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
Supreme Court, 5th February 2014
‘The Supreme Court has handed down a major ruling on applications to rectify the register of town and village greens, lapses of time and the question of whether there would be a serious detriment or prejudice should an application be granted.’
Local Government Lawyer, 5th February 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court is set to rule this week on two conjoined cases concerning whether it is just to de-register land registered as a town or village green when there was a legal error that led to the registration.’
Local Government Lawyer, 4th February 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Alfred and Maureen Rawlings’ wills were contested after a clerical error saw them sign each other’s paperwork.’
Daily Telegraph, 23rd January 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Marley v Rawlings and another [2014] UKSC 2; [2014] WLR (D) 18
A will did not have to satisfy the requirements for formal validity prescribed by section 9 of the Wills Act 1837, as amended, or have the testator’s knowledge and approval before it could be treated as a “will” which was capable of being rectified under section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982.
WLR Daily, 22nd January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Marley (Appellant) v Rawlings and another (Respondents) [2014] UKSC 2 | UKSC 2012/0057 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 22nd January 2014
‘Equitable rectification provides a separate, distinct and interesting remedy that is available to cure errors in executed agreements. The availability of the remedy can often be critical in circumstances, for example, where the transaction requires registration at the Land Registry or third party rights and interests are affected by the agreements. In landlord and tenant and real estate transactions the remedy has been granted in a myriad of circumstances ranging from disputes about break clauses, rent review, real estate transfers or sale and leaseback agreements. Rectification in these is therefore of more than passing academic interest, its grant nullifying potentially disastrous consequences when an executed agreement incorrectly records the agreement made between the parties. ‘
Hardwicke Chambers, 5th December 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘A bitter dispute between three “brothers” over who should gain a £70,000 inheritance after a couple mistakenly signed each other’s wills was brought before the Supreme Court today.’
The Independent, 3rd December 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Role of Equity in Mistaken Transactions – Speech by the Chancellor of the High Court. ACTAPS lecture 2013, delivered 20th November 2013.’
Judiciary of England and Wales, 21st November 2013
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
Day and another v Day [2013] EWCA Civ 280; [2013] WLR (D) 129
“For the purposes of the doctrine of rectification in the case of a voluntary settlement it was the subjective intention of the settlor that was of relevance in determining whether the court should order rectification and an outward expression or objective communication of that intention was unnecessary in such a case.”
WLR Daily, 27th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024