The Royal Society v Robinson & ors [2015] EWHC 3442 (Ch)

Analysis

This was a claim to construe a will or, in the alternative to rectify it. Mr Michael Crowley-Milling (the deceased) died on 24 December 2012. His wife had pre-deceased him and he was survived by one niece, Mrs Lorna Joy Robinson and the children of his other niece (who had predeceased him) James Masterman and Rebecca Masterman (the next of kin). The deceased was a distinguished scientist and had decided to leave the bulk of his estate to the Royal Society.

The deceased left two wills: a Swiss will from February 2006 (the Swiss will) and an English will from October 2009 (the 2009 will). There was no issue in relation to the Swiss will under which the deceased’s sole asset in Switzerland, a Swiss bank account, passed to the Royal Society.

The 2009 will gifted pecuniary legacies to Mrs Robinson, James and Rebecca, while the residuary estate passed to the Royal Society. The construction issue arose out of clause 1 of the 2009 will, which stated that the will applied only to ‘property of mine which is situated at my death in the United Kingdom’. For many years up to the time of his death, the deceased had substantial assets in offshore accounts in the Isle of Man and in Jersey (the offshore accounts). The question was therefore on the true construction of the 2009 will, the 2009 will included the offshore accounts. This in turn raised the question of the deceased’s intention in a previous will in 2006 (the 2006 will) since clause 1 of both wills was identical.

If the effect of clause 1 was that the 2009 will excluded the offshore accounts, there would have been an intestacy with respect to those accounts, which would pass to the next of kin.

Held:

1. 1) The technical meaning of the United Kingdom does not include Jersey in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.
2. 2) Section 21(c) of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 applied to the 2009 will, since the facts other than the facts as to the deceased’s intention raise a real question as to the meaning of clause 1 of the 2009 will. Therefore extrinsic evidence was admissible to assist in the interpretation of the 2009 will.
3. 3) The deceased intended to include the offshore accounts in the 2006 will, and hence the 2009 will. The extrinsic evidence revealed the deceased’s intention for the offshore accounts to pass to the Royal Society. It was not consistent with his intention that they would pass to his next of kin on an intestacy.
4. 4) The finding as to construction rendered it unnecessary to deal with the question of rectification. Nonetheless, whilst six months had elapsed since the grant of probate, it would have been appropriate to extend the time and grant permission for the Royal Society to bring an application for rectification under s20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982. No one had drawn the construction issue to anybody’s attention until late 2014, at which point the Royal Society indicated almost immediately they were applying for rectification.
5. 5) If it were necessary to grant rectification, this would have been granted on the grounds of s20(1)(b), namely that the will failed to carry out the deceased’s intentions in consequence of a failure to understand his instructions, namely that the deceased did not in fact intend to exclude the offshore accounts from the 2009 will.

JUDGMENT NUGEE J [1] I have before me a claim to construe a will or in the alternative to rectify it, or in the further alternative for it to be admitted to probate with certain words omitted. [2] The testator, Mr Michael Crowley-Milling (whom I will call Mr Crowley-Milling) was born in 1917 and died …

Continue reading "The Royal Society v Robinson & ors [2015] EWHC 3442 (Ch)"