fbpx

'Both' or 'Each'? – One Mistranscribed Word Triggers £6.4 Million Will Dispute

15th July 2021 By

Will drafting is an exact science, requiring years of professional training, and a single mischosen or out-of-place word can have very serious consequences. Exactly that happened in a High Court case concerning the mistaken use of the word ‘both’ – rather than ‘each’ – in a millionaire businessman’s will.

The businessman, whose estate was worth £6.4 million, was the main shareholder in a company in which his wife and a close friend and colleague – the beneficiaries – held minority stakes. By his will, he conferred power on his executors to allocate part of his shareholding to the beneficiaries so that ‘both’ of their shareholdings would amount to 26 per cent of the company’s issued share capital.

Following his death, an issue arose as to whether, on a true reading of the will, the executors were able to assign to the beneficiaries the number of shares required to bring each of their shareholdings up to 26 per cent of the total, or only so many shares as would bring their combined shareholdings to 26 per cent. Although that issue hinged on the interpretation of a single word, it was highly significant in money terms and had financial implications for a charity that was also a beneficiary of the will.

Ruling on the case, the Court found that the word ‘both’, as employed in the will, was ambiguous, both on its face and in the light of the surrounding circumstances. Viewed in context, the evidence established beyond doubt that the businessman’s intention was that each of the beneficiaries should have 26 per cent of the company.

The Court found that the use of the word ‘both’, rather than ‘each’, was a perfect clerical mistake, arising from a secretarial mistranscription. Given the Court’s interpretation of the will, however, it was unnecessary to engage the power of rectification to amend the document’s wording.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Restrictions on Property Use Can Be Limited by Human Lifespans

23rd July, 2021 By

Restrictions on the use to which properties can be put often lurk in old title deeds. As one case showed, however, some of them only endure as long as a human lifetime whilst others have no such shelf life and continue to have effect indefinitely. The case concerned a covenant in a 1961 conveyance that placed restrictions on the purchasers of a building plot on which a bungalow was later erected. It forbade them from constructing any other building on the plot, and from making alterations to the bungalow's external...

COVID-19 – Do Diving Asset Values Justify Unwinding Divorce Settlements?

20th July, 2021 By

The value of many assets has been devastated by COVID-19 – but is that a good enough reason for setting aside divorce settlements agreed before the pandemic struck? A family judge considered that issue in a guideline case. The case concerned a middle-aged couple whose 24-year marriage yielded three children before it ended in divorce. By far their biggest asset was a family business which, prior to the onset of the pandemic, was valued at about £3.5 million gross. The husband owned 51 per cent of the shares in the...

'Both' or 'Each'? – One Mistranscribed Word Triggers £6.4 Million Will Dispute

15th July, 2021 By

Will drafting is an exact science, requiring years of professional training, and a single mischosen or out-of-place word can have very serious consequences. Exactly that happened in a High Court case concerning the mistaken use of the word 'both' – rather than 'each' – in a millionaire businessman's will. The businessman, whose estate was worth £6.4 million, was the main shareholder in a company in which his wife and a close friend and colleague – the beneficiaries – held minority stakes. By his will, he conferred power on his executors...

Judge Declines to Authorise COVID-19 Vaccination of Dementia Sufferer

12th July, 2021 By

Whether or not to be vaccinated against COVID-19 is a matter of personal choice. A family judge robustly made that point in declining to authorise vaccination of a care home resident suffering from acute dementia who had fiercely objected to the procedure. The 86-year-old woman believed that she was living in the late 1940s or early 1950s, that her long-deceased parents were still alive and that she worked at a cake factory where she had been employed in her youth. Every day at 4pm, when the factory siren once signalled...