The Law Commissioner’s Update To The Wills Act 1837: Update regarding Protecting Testators: Undue Influence And Knowledge And Approval

Part 5 of this mini-series looking at the updates from the Law Commission on the Wills Act 1837 (Act). In this blog, we are looking at the updates regarding protecting testators with regard to:

By way of a brief recap, the update from the Law Commissioner has been ongoing since 2016, with a slight pause in 2019. In 2023, the Law Commissioner published its Supplementary Consultation Paper, which focused on two main issues:

On 16 May 2025, they published their report, Modernising Wills Law, which contained two volumes:

This blog will be focusing on Chapter 13, Revocations.

There are 4 methods of revocation:

The first three points, when considered in light of the consultation paper, showed that there were no problems with the law in relation to these methods of revocation, so no recommendations have been made to reform the law in respect of revocation by another Will, written intention, or destruction.

The main concern raised in 2017 was about predatory marriages, whereby a person marries someone, often someone who is elderly or lacks the mental capacity to marry, as a form of financial abuse. Concerns about predatory marriages increased from 2017–2023 and were directly raised with them during their project on weddings. With the benefit of consultees’ more recent views on the revocation rule, it was recommended that the rule be should abolished.

Currently, the Wills Act 1837 says that a person’s Will is automatically revoked if they get married or enter into a civil partnership by virtue of s.18 (for marriage) or s.18B (civil partnership), with the exception that the Will is made in contemplation of that marriage or civil partnership. For this to apply, the Will must be clear in its drafting that it should not be revoked. S.19 makes it clear that no other change in the testator’s circumstances functions to revoke their Will.

In the Law Commissioner’s view, the strongest argument in favour of retention of the revocation rule is the risk that litigation under the 1975 Act would increase if the rules were abolished. The rule applies to all marriages and civil partnerships, not just predatory ones.

1975 Act

The argument is that, without the rule revoking a Will on marriage/entering a civil partnership, the surviving spouses/partners in legitimate marriages would more often be left without reasonable provision in the light of a Will which pre-existed the marriage/civil partnership and so would be forced to make a claim under the 1975 Act.

They, however, believe that, even if litigation did increase, it seems unlikely to be a large increase. Firstly, they say it seems unlikely that the revocation rule determines the succession of many estates. For it to apply, the testator would have to have made a Will prior to getting married or entering a civil partnership, and then not made a new Will before they die/lose capacity.

Particularly in relation to marriages entered into earlier in a person’s life, it is less likely that the testator will make a Will at some point after getting married/forming a civil partnership, whether they know of the revocation rule or not. They consulted members of the public and the general consensus is that people change their Wills later in life to reflect life events such as relationship breakdowns/having children/having grandchildren, so generally the person’s last Will is reflective of their later life.

Secondly, where the revocation rule does apply, a claim will only be made by the surviving spouse/partner if they feel that reasonable provision has not been made for them.

They believe that abolishing the rule will introduce a fairer balance between the interests of various potential beneficiaries. Although doing so would disadvantage spouses/partners, as they would no longer be able to rely on the intestacy provision, they would remain protected by the 1975 Act. They say that they are reassured by the evidence of some consultees that the 1975 Act claims by surviving spouses and civil partners, where it is apparent that reasonable provision has not been made for them, are generally straightforward and successful and are therefore likely to settle.

Finally, they considered whether any increase in litigation under the Act might be offset, at least in part, by a reduction in applications for statutory Wills under the MCA, meaning that there is not an overall increase in litigation. Obtaining a statutory Will is the only option to prevent a person dying intestate when their Will has been revoked, but they lack the capacity to make a new one. Therefore, if Wills are no longer revoked on marriage or the formation of a civil partnership, there will be fewer individuals without a Will who lack capacity. The result might therefore be fewer statutory Will applications.

Different tests of capacity and predatory marriage

A strong argument in favour of the abolition of the revocation rule is that it is contrary to the approach to capacity in both the common law and MCA. Mental capacity under the law is issue-specific, and it is therefore difficult to justify an exception to this principle in the case of the revocation rule: as a matter of policy, it is hard to see why a person who lacks the capacity to revoke their Will intentionally should nevertheless revoke their Will unintentionally, by getting married/entering into a civil partnership. It allows a person to effectively make a significant financial decision when the law says that they are unable to do so.

Another argument in favour of the reform is that by abolishing the rule, you will be eliminating one main financial incentive for getting married or entering a civil partnership with a vulnerable individual (i.e a predatory marriage/civil partnership). Whilst they acknowledge that predatory marriages are uncommon, the frequency should not be a determining factor. They believe that the significant harm caused by this type of financial abuse warrants intervention.

The case of Langley v Quinn is an example of how rules need to be changed. In summary, in June 2019, the 93-year-old testator married his second wife, Guixiang Qin, who was 54. This marriage revoked the Will in which T’s daughter was the main beneficiary.

In March 2020, T made a new Will, which named Qin as the sole beneficiary and executor. He died in May 2020. T’s daughter alleged that this was a predatory marriage. The daughter successfully challenged the 2020 Will, which the court set aside on lack of testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and approval, and undue influence. T therefore died intestate and, under the intestacy rules, Qin still would receive the majority of the estate. Notably, if the marriage had not revoked the Will, once the 2020 will was set aside, T’s previous Will in favour of his daughter would have remained valid. Qin would have been able to bring a claim under the 1975 Act, in which the circumstances of the marriage and its duration would have been relevant to determining whether and what reasonable financial provisions should be made for her.

Recommendation: