Revoking a Will - the consequences for a previous Will.

[atticus]

here you are: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga.../7/26/contents

You can also consult a dictionary.

[Pezza54]

Section 9(1) of the Wills Act 1837 is explained in more detail at prettys.co.uk in the article "Signed, witnessed, valid? The formal requirements for a will under the Wills Act 1837"

In the 2024 case of The British Diabetic Association v Chenery, the judge decided that a will written on 2 separate pieces of cardboard and signed by witnesses at separate times was a valid will. It was sufficient for the witness to see the testator's signature and for the testator to say this is my will and that is my signature

[Dev'sAd]

Interesting discovery.

If the intended outcome, by destroying a Will, was based on a mistaken assumption - as it was in this case - then the Will is not revoked by its destruction.

[atticus]

Please cite your source for that proposition: I would like to see whether it is heavily circumscribed.

[Dev'sAd]

No circumscription, heavy or otherwise. (You are right, tho' - I did have to use a dictionary there - thank for the heads-up earlier)

It's a matter of law. Destruction has to be done with intent. If the 'intent' was based on a misapprehension, then it wasn't true intent. Bleedin' obvious when you think about it.

[atticus]

I repeat: Please cite your source for that proposition

[Dev'sAd]

It ain't a proposition. It's law.

[PallasAthena]

When discussing the law Dev'sAd it isn't enough to just state "It's law" you need to say what the source of the law is.

Is it statute law, Acts of parliament and Regulations? Is so which Act/Regulation?

Or is it the decision of a judge in a previous court case? If so, which case?

[atticus]

It's a legal proposition.

Based on my research (including reading the leading decided cases), it can be briefly stated as follows:

Destruction of a Will is not effective revocation unless the testator clearly intended to revoke it - and that intention must not be based on a false assumption about the facts or the law.

You have said (post #1) The new Will in this case was indisputably revoked by the author by its intentional destruction, and evidenced by their own written words. The author's intention by destroying this Will, (to retain the earlier Will) is also clear and evidenced.

You have also said (post #21) Very shortly afterwards, the testator completely and intentionally destroyed this second Will, explained doing so in writing, and made it clear that their wish was to revert to the previous Will.

So we have the intention to revoke. We have a statement about the intention of the deceased in destroying that Will, which does seem to be a false assumption.

This will be an interesting case in court! (And I always used to tell clients that they did not want their cases to be ones that lawyers thought interesting!)

[atticus]

The facts described by the OP are most similar to those of Re Jones [1976] 1 Ch 200.

A lot will depend on the strength/quality of the evidence about the deceased's intention in destroying the second will.

[Dev'sAd]

Thank you, Atticus, and apologies, Pallathasena.

I have to confess that I was being intentionally obtuse, as I was wondering what would happen if I 'provoked' a bit, having become a bit frustrated with, 'The LAW states...so get over it'.

But, Atticus came up trumps by considering it seriously. I do have a test case - a different one - found by complete chance whilst Googling. A Contentious Probate solicitor of decent repute has confirmed for the executor that it's valid, given the evidence in this case. This is hugely significant here.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2019/54.html Summing up 41d&e.