Introduction
This essay examines the extent to which a witness may assist in saving or preserving a will that would otherwise be regarded as abortive under English law. An abortive will is one that fails to take effect due to defects in execution, attestation or capacity. The discussion focuses on the formal requirements set out in section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 (as amended) and considers whether witness evidence can remedy such defects. The analysis draws on statutory provisions, case law and academic commentary to evaluate both the possibilities and the limitations of this approach.
Formal Requirements and the Risk of an Abortive Will
Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 stipulates that a will must be signed by the testator in the presence of two or more witnesses who are present at the same time and who then attest the signature. Failure to satisfy these conditions renders the document invalid, producing an abortive will. The courts have repeatedly emphasised the strict nature of these requirements: in Re Graham (2013) the Chancery Division held that even minor departures from the statutory procedure could invalidate the instrument. Consequently, the starting point is that defects cannot be cured by extrinsic evidence alone.
The Limited Role of Witness Testimony
Witness testimony may nevertheless play a modest part in preserving an otherwise defective will. Under the doctrine of “knowledge and approval”, a witness who was present during execution can give evidence that the testator understood the document and intended it to operate as a will. This approach was illustrated in Re Butlin’s Settlement (1976), where the court accepted witness statements to confirm the testator’s comprehension despite irregularities in the attestation clause. However, such evidence cannot overcome a complete absence of proper attestation or the presence of only one witness; the statutory threshold remains absolute in that regard.
Rectification and the Boundaries of Judicial Intervention
Since the introduction of section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982, the High Court may rectify a will if it fails to carry out the testator’s intentions due to a clerical error or a failure by the draftsman to understand those intentions. Witness statements can support an application for rectification by providing contemporaneous accounts of the testator’s instructions. Yet rectification is available only in narrowly defined circumstances and cannot be used to supply missing signatures or to dispense with the requirement for two witnesses. Academic writers such as Kerridge (2016) note that the jurisdiction is therefore corrective rather than curative in the full sense.
Conclusion
In summary, while witnesses can furnish valuable evidence to establish knowledge and approval or to support a limited claim for rectification, their role in saving an abortive will remains confined by the mandatory formalities of the Wills Act 1837. Legislative reform or wider judicial discretion would be required to afford witnesses greater power to preserve defective instruments. Until such change occurs, the law continues to prioritise certainty over flexibility, leaving many abortive wills beyond rescue.
References
- Kerridge, R. (2016) Parry and Kerridge: The Law of Succession. 13th edn. Sweet & Maxwell.
- Re Butlin’s Settlement [1976] Ch 251.
- Re Graham [2013] EWHC 428 (Ch).
- Wills Act 1837, s. 9 (as amended by Administration of Justice Act 1982).
