No signed copies of wills retained

[Openlaw15]

Re: No signed copies of wills retained

I know. Still the witnesses who sign to acknowledge the testators signature must both be in the room at the same time as the testator acknowledges his signature. The following case law backs that up completely.

Say Jeff and Fred have signed the will as Witnesses. Bill and Flo haven't signed the will as witnesses. At some point both Jeff and Fred must have been in the same room as the Testator when he said ' This is my signature '. Not Jeff , Bill and the Testator then at a separate time Fred , Flo and the Testator - it has to be Jeff, Fred and the Testator, in the room at the same time.

I think maybe you are saying the same just being narky for the sake of it.


Witnesses who signed and Witnesses who saw - Witnesses who saw are irrelevant - it has to be both Witnesses who signed.

Actually, no the testator does not need to be in the room.....it's just the witnesses who need to be who at least acknowledge the Will's signature. Let's use a similar analogy to yours. Let's assume Michael. the testator, throws a party for his friends as he has just acquired a major contract. Therein are potentially many material witnesses, ie including any of his friends who being by name Stephen, Simon, Paul, and Chloe. Michael beckons all his friends to him as he has an important statement to make. "Here, on this beautiful table, lay my Last Will and Testimony, and I require at least two witnesses simultaneously to at least acknowledge my signature albeit signing it would be preferential. "I hope by the end of the evening at least two of you fine folk will do me this common courtesy. I will now depart to the drawing room for some beverages where I leave said Will in the lounge to so witness."

So, in theory any one of Michael's friends including those named (for effect) could acknowledge his (Michael's) signature but the proof in the pudding (the evidence) is more likely stronger where said witnesses sign as witnesses. Michael need not be in the room as in the other case I cited above.

[Openlaw15]

Re: No signed copies of wills retained

I know. Still the witnesses who sign to acknowledge the testators signature must both be in the room at the same time as the testator acknowledges his signature. The following case law backs that up completely.

Say Jeff and Fred have signed the will as Witnesses. Bill and Flo haven't signed the will as witnesses. At some point both Jeff and Fred must have been in the same room as the Testator when he said ' This is my signature '. Not Jeff , Bill and the Testator then at a separate time Fred , Flo and the Testator - it has to be Jeff, Fred and the Testator, in the room at the same time.

I think maybe you are saying the same just being narky for the sake of it.


Witnesses who signed and Witnesses who saw - Witnesses who saw are irrelevant - it has to be both Witnesses who signed.

Sharon, look at these terms of the s.9, Wills Act.

"in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time."

Having thought about it, I think 'present at the same time' is an interesting concept actually. It is either a law that is written rather badly or Parliament may have intended some broad scope with these words/ terms. At the same time could be where all potential witnesses were at a certain place at the same time, ergo your analogy or mine in context. It could equally be where the witnesses have to sign together, which is obviously a different statutory criteria. The terms of the act do not state that the witnesses must sign or acknowledge the testator's signature together, however.