Succession: Key cases for s.9 Wills Act formalities

Kell v Chamer – a will may be written in any language or code - jewellery codes

Barnes – a will may be written on any material - egg shell

Murray – a will may be written on any material – cigarette packet

Hindmarsh v Charlton – signature: name or mark intended to represent name

In the Goods of Kieran – 2 letter signature was sufficient

Re Cook – “your loving mother” was sufficient

In the Goods of Flinn – thumb print signature was sufficient

Wood v Smith – may sign anywhere on the will

In the Goods of Mann – unsigned will contained in signed envelope was sufficient

In the Estate of Bean – unsigned will and unsigned envelope: name, address, date had been stated but was still insuffient

Smith v Smith – witness need not know the document is a will

Re Collings – witness must stay present until signature is complete

Brown v Skirrow – witnesses must be mentally and physically present

Casson v Dade – it was enough that the testator could have seen the witness sign, even if he did not actually see it

Couser v Couser – the judge questioned why no one asked if testator had looked to see the witness sign

Wilson v Beddard – 14 yr old witness was sufficient

Corbett v Newey – will doesn’t need to be dated

Banks v Goodfellow – T must understand 1) effect, 2) extent, 3) nature of will

Parker v Felgate – 1) capacity when drafting will, 2) will prepared as directed, 3) remembers instructions and believe they were followed, 4) no suspicious circumstances

In the Estate of Bohrmann – only need to exclude the part of the will affected by incapacity

Hall v Hall – Undue Influence – testator may be “lead but not driven”

Vaccianna v Herod – Forgery – civil standard of proof