Rectification Of A Will: Bonham And Another v Stringer And Others

When preparing a Will, it is possible that mistakes may occur, particularly for those making home made Wills. The impact of a mistake can be minor or great; for example, the misspelling of an address is unlikely to have any consequences, whereas the misspelling of a beneficiary’s name may result in the wrong person inheriting. It is therefore important to ensure the terms of your Will are correct at the time of signing, and the instruction of a Solicitor reduces the chances of a fundamental mistake being made.

In the event a mistake is made, it may be possible for the Court to rectify that mistake. The Courts have powers of rectification, providing the statutory criteria for a valid Will has been met and are also able to interpret a Will in a way that meets the Testator’s wishes. The Court’s powers of interpretation were recently seen in the case of Bonham and another v Stringer and others.

Bonham & Anor v Stringer & Ors [2025]

In that case, the Testator directed that his residuary estate be split into 4 equal parts. The Testator proceeded to distribute only 3 parts, leaving a fourth undistributed part. The executors were therefore forced to apply to Court to rectify/determine the terms of the Will. With the absence of a substitution clause and without the Court’s involvement, the fourth share of the residuary estate would have been subject to the intestacy rules and therefore would have passed to the Deceased’s next of kin, in accordance with the Administration of Estates Act 1925.

In considering the application, the Court reminded themselves of their powers. The Court was able to declare/rectify the meaning of the Will where the language used is ambiguous and in light of the surrounding circumstances, including any extrinsic evidence before them. The Court’s considered evidence from the Solicitors preparing the Will where it was explained that the Testator’s intentions changed throughout his instructions, with his residuary estate originally being left in 4 parts. But for the final version being saved without issue, the Will would have been correct in referring to only 3 parts. There was no evidence that the Testator deliberately created a partial intestacy, and the Judge noted that if that were the case, the Solicitor preparing the Will would have included a clause to avoid any ambiguity.

Based on the evidence before them, the Court declared the true construction of the Will was to split the Testator’s residue into only 3 parts. This interpretation allowed the executors to accurately reflect the Testator’s intentions.

Comment

This case highlights the importance of ensuring Wills accurately reflect the testator’s intentions, but in the event a mistake is made, the Court may be able to intervene. It should be noted that the costs involved with this application would have been significant. Whilst this case was borne out of a technical error, the delay and process required further demonstrates the advantages of instructing a Solicitor to prepare your Will.