Key Facts
- •Hartar Singh Sangha died on 3 September 2016 leaving substantial assets in England and India.
- •He made four wills: 1979, 2003, 2007, and 2016.
- •The 2016 will, dealing only with Indian assets, contained a clause revoking 'all such previous documents'.
- •Dispute arose over whether the 2016 will revoked the 2007 will entirely or only partially (regarding Indian assets).
- •A further dispute concerned the 2007 will's valid execution under s. 9 of the Wills Act 1837.
- •The 2007 will's witnesses signed at different times relative to the testator's signature.
- •Hartar had complex family relationships and property holdings, including properties held jointly with his second wife, Jaswinder.
Legal Principles
In probate cases, the court considers the testator's intention, examining evidence beyond the will itself.
Methuen v Methuen (1817), re Resch’s Will Trusts [1969], Lamothe v Lamothe [2006]
A general revocation clause is strong evidence of the testator's intention, but not conclusive. A heavy burden lies on those challenging it.
Lowthorpe-Lutwidge v Lowthorpe-Lutwidge [1935]
Even with a general revocation clause, the court considers evidence to determine if the testator intended the clause's full effect.
Dempsey v Lawson (1877)
The presumption against intestacy guides interpretation but doesn't override clear wording.
re Harrison (1885), re Edwards [1906], re Abbott [1944], Partington v Rossiter [2021]
Wills Act 1963, s. 1: A will's execution conforms to the internal law of the place of execution, domicile, habitual residence, or testator's nationality.
Wills Act 1963, s. 1
Wills Act 1837, s. 9 (as amended): Requirements for valid will execution (writing, signature, intent, acknowledgment in presence of witnesses, witness attestation/acknowledgment).
Wills Act 1837, s. 9 (as amended by Administration of Justice Act 1982)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The 2016 will's revocation clause, interpreted naturally, revoked the 2007 will entirely. Evidence didn't sufficiently counter this.
2007 will's execution deemed invalid (obiter).
Witness 1 signed before the testator's acknowledgment in the presence of both witnesses, violating the required sequence under s. 9 of the Wills Act 1837 as amended.