Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:33:35.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Priviledge Wills and Testamentry Formalities: A Time to Die?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 1999

Patricia Critchley
Patricia Critchley*
Affiliation:
Hertford College, Oxford
Get access

Abstract

This article examines the doctrine of privileged wills, under section 11 of the Wills Act 1837, which permits soldiers in “actual military service” and sailors “at sea” to make testamentary dispositions of their property in any convenient form, rather than in the strict form dictated for civilian wills by section 9 of the same Act. The question raised is whether the continued existence of this privilege can really be justified in a modern society where service and marine personnel are generally as well educated and as well advised as civilian testators. To answer this, the article considers the principal benefits and detriments of the formal requirements imposed by section 9, and tries to identify any way in which the balance of these benefits and detriments might differ for privileged testators. The conclusion reached is that there is no principled justification which can be made out for retaining section 11 in its present form. Instead, the only options which are theoretically supportable are either to extend the scope of the present doctrine considerably (thought by many commentators to be indesirable) or to abolish it.

Type
Shorter Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , March 1999 , pp. 49 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © The Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors, 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Re Stable [1919] P. 7; Re Jones [1981] Fam. 7.

2 Stopford v. Stopford (1903) 19 T.L.R. 185.

3 Gattward v. Knee [1902] P. 99.

4 Re Rippon [1943] P. 61.

5 Re Gossage [1921] P. 194. Logically, therefore, the privilege should also cover alteration of an existing will.

6 Re Booth [1926] P. 118.

7 In bonis Donaldson (1840) 2 Curt. 386; Re Stanley [1916] P. 192.

8 Re Anderson [1944] P. 1.

9 Re Knibbs [1962] 1 W.L.R. 852.

10 In bonis Hale [1915] 2 I.R. 362.

11 Re Rowson [1944] 2 All E.R. 36 (WAAF).

12 Re Spark [1941] P. 115, 117; (but cf. In bonis Gibson [1941] 2 All E.R. 91, disapproved by the Court of Appeal in Re Wingham [1949] P. 187, but not actually overruled).

13 Re Wingham [1949] P. 187.

14 Re Rippon [1943] P. 61.

15 In bonis Hiscock [1901] P. 78; Gattward v. Knee [1902] P. 99; Re Wingham [1949] P. 187.

16 Re Colman [1958] 1 W.L.R. 457.

17 Re Jones [1981] Fam. 7.

18 Re Yates [1919] P. 93.

19 In bonis Newland [1952] P. 71; In bonis Wilson [1952] P. 92; Re Rapley [1983] 1 W.L.R. 1069.

20 For a fuller consideration of benefit and detriment analysis of formalities, see Critchley, P.R.F., “Taking Formalities Seriously” in Bright, S. and Dewar, J.K. (eds.), Land Law: Themes and Perspectives (Oxford, 1998)Google Scholar, ch. 20.

21 L.L. Fuller, “Consideration and Form” (1941) 41 Columbia L. Rev. 799.

22 Perillo, J.M., “The Statute of Frauds in the Light of the Functions and Dysfunctions of Form” (1974) 43 Fordham L. Rev. 39, 62–64Google Scholar.

23 Gulliver, A.G. and Tilson, C.J., “Classification of Gratuitous Transfers” (1941) 51 Yale L.J. 1, 1–12; Fourth Report made to His Majesty by the Commissioners Appointed to Inquire into the Law of England Respecting Real Property (On Wills) (London, 1833)Google Scholar (hereinafter “Real Property Commissioners”), pp. 16–19.

24 Scottish Law Commission, Consultative Memorandum No. 66, Constitution and Proof of Voluntary Obligations and the Authentication of Writings (1985), paras. 3.2, 3.8.

25 Muukkonen, P.J., “Formal Provisions and the Elimination of their Detrimental Consequences” (1961) 5 Scandinavian Studies in Law 79, 83–84Google Scholar.

26 See Law Reform Committee, Twenty-Second Report (The Making and Revocation of Wills) (London, 1980)Google Scholar (hereinafter “Law Reform Committee”), Annex 2 (results of a 1978 study carried out by the Family Division Registry).

27 [1981] Fam. 7.

28 Re Anderson [1916] P. 49.

29 Re MacGillivray [1946] 2 All E.R. 301.

30 R.E. Megarry, “ ‘Actual Military Service’ and Soldiers’ Privileged Wills” (1941) 57 L.Q.R. 481 (hereinafter “Megarry”), 485–487.

31 S.N.L. Palk, “Informal Wills: From Soldiers to Citizens” (1976) 5 Adel. L. Rev. 382, 393; A.G. Lang, “Privileged Will—A Dangerous Anachronism?” (1985) 8 U. Tasm. L. Rev. 166 (hereinafter “Lang”), 178.

32 In bonis Hiscock [1901] P. 78, 80; Re Spark [1941] P. 115, 116–117; Re Anderson [1944] P. 1, 3–4.

33 Lang, at pp. 176–177.

34 [1981] Fam. 7.

35 [1902] P. 99.

36 Weiss, T., “The Formalities of Testamentary Execution by Service Personnel” (1947) 33 Iowa L. Rev. 48 (hereinafter “Weiss”), 48, 53Google Scholar.

37 e.g., Re Wingham [1949] P. 187, 196.

38 As in Re Jones [1981] Fam. 7 (fatally wounded soldier making oral will in ambulance).

39 See case references cited at note 32 above.

40 Goodhart, A.L.G. (1949) 65 L.Q.R. 6, 7; G. Cole, “How Active is Actual Military Service?” [1982] Conv. 185 (hereinafter “Cole”), 189; though note Weiss, at pp. 82–83Google Scholar.

41 Weiss, at pp. 83–84.

42 Lang, at p. 176.

43 Ibid., at p. 178.

44 Re Spark [1941] P. 115, 117; Davey, M., “The Making and Revocation of Wills” [1980] Conv. 64 (hereinafter “Davey”), 71Google Scholar.

45 Megarry, at p. 487.

46 See In bonis Gibson [1941] 2 All E.R. 91, 92; Megarry, at p. 488; D.C. Potter, “Soldiers’ Wills” (1948) 12 M.L.R. 183, 187.

47 See, e.g., Davey, at p. 72; Lang, at pp. 179–180; Cole, at p. 190; P. Bailey, “A Soldier's Privileged Will in Northern Ireland” (1982) 33 N.I.L.Q. 53, 58–59.

48 See Law Reform Committee, Annex 2, section 5.

49 Real Property Commissioners, at p. 22; Law Reform Committee, at para. 2.21.