Strict Interpretation of Revocation Clauses in Wills: Sangha v Estate of Diljit Kaur Sangha & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 660

Introduction

The case of Sangha v Estate of Diljit Kaur Sangha & Ors ([2023] EWCA Civ 660) presents a complex probate dispute involving the validity and extent of revocation clauses in multiple wills. The deceased, Hartar Singh Sangha, left significant assets in both England and India and executed several wills over the years to manage these assets. The central issues revolve around whether the 2016 will effectively revoked all previous wills or only those pertaining to his Indian estate, and whether the 2007 will was duly executed under the Wills Act 1837.

Summary of the Judgment

Initially, the Deputy Master ruled that Hartar's 2016 will contained a general revocation clause that entirely revoked all previous wills, including the 2007 will, leading to intestacy concerning his English assets. Jaswinder, Hartar's second wife, appealed this decision, contending that the revocation was limited to wills pertaining only to his Indian estate. The Deputy Judge sided with Jaswinder, interpreting the revocation clause as partial. However, upon appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned the Deputy Judge's interpretation, affirming the Deputy Master's original conclusion that the 2016 will fully revoked all prior wills. Consequently, Hartar's estate, particularly his English assets, was deemed intestate, pending further resolution on his domicile and marital status.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key cases to underpin its reasoning:

Lamothe v Lamothe [2006] EWHC 1387 (Ch): Highlighted the court's duty to ascertain the testator's intention regarding revocation of wills.
re Wayland [1951] 1 All ER 1041: Demonstrated that a revocation clause could be interpreted narrowly based on the context and explicit statements.
Benjamin v Bennett [2007] All ER (D) 243: Reinforced that revocation clauses in foreign wills do not necessarily affect domestic wills unless explicitly intended.
Methuen v Methuen (1817) 2 Phil 416, Lowthorpe-Lutwidge v Lowthorpe-Lutwidge [1935] P 151, and others: Emphasized the heavy burden of proof required to counteract a general revocation clause.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal's decision was grounded in the strict interpretation of general revocation clauses within wills. The 2016 will explicitly stated that it revoked "all such previous documents," which, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, was interpreted as a complete revocation of all prior wills, including those governing Hartar's English assets. The court also delved into the requirements of heartfelt execution as stipulated in Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837, reinforcing that all formalities must be meticulously observed to uphold the validity of a will. The sequential execution of signing and attestation by witnesses was underscored as a critical factor, ensuring that the will met all statutory requirements.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future probate cases, particularly concerning the interpretation of revocation clauses in wills. It reinforces the principle that general revocation clauses are to be construed strictly, unless there is unequivocal evidence indicating that the testator intended a narrower revocation. Additionally, the decision underscores the necessity for meticulous adherence to the formal execution requirements of wills, highlighting that deviations can render a will invalid. This serves as a cautionary tale for individuals drafting wills to ensure clarity and formal compliance to safeguard their testamentary intentions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Revocation Clause

A revocation clause in a will is a statement whereby the testator declares that any previous wills are nullified. In this case, Hartar's 2016 will contained a general revocation clause intending to cancel all prior wills. The court interpreted "all such previous documents" as encompassing every former will unless specific intent to limit the revocation is evidenced.

Due Execution under Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837

For a will to be valid under the Wills Act 1837, it must be in writing, signed by the testator or someone at their direction, and witnessed by at least two individuals who attestate to the will's execution. The sequence and presence during signing are crucial to prevent fraud and ensure the testator's genuine intent. In this case, the execution of the 2007 will was scrutinized to determine if it complied with these requirements.

Presumption Against Intestacy

The legal system prefers that a person dies with a will (testate) rather than without one (intestate), as intestacy can lead to unintended distribution of assets. The presumption against intestacy requires the court to interpret wills in a manner that avoids leaving any portion of the estate undisposed, unless clear intent suggests otherwise. However, this presumption was deemed insufficient in overturning the clear language of the revocation clause in the 2016 will.

Conclusion

The Sangha v Estate of Diljit Kaur Sangha & Ors judgment serves as a pivotal reference in probate law, particularly concerning the interpretation of revocation clauses and the adherence to formal execution requirements. By affirming that a general revocation clause effectively nullifies all previous wills absent clear contrary evidence, the Court of Appeal reinforced the sanctity of the testator's explicit intentions as articulated within their final will. Furthermore, the emphasis on strict compliance with execution formalities underlines the judiciary's role in preserving the integrity of testamentary dispositions. This case underscores the necessity for meticulous drafting and execution of wills to ensure that the testator's wishes are accurately and fully realized.