WILLS BILL (Hansard, 29 April 1968)

§ LORD MORRIS OF KENWOOD
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this short measure is to rectify an unfortunate anomaly which arises out of Section 15 of the Wills Act 1837—an Act which, I believe, has not come before your Lordships for amendment since its inception. In essence, Section 15 states that where either a person who is entitled to benefit under the terms of a will or his spouse witnesses the signature of the testator to the will, then that person or his spouse loses all right to benefit from the provisions of that will. When the original Bill was enacted, this section was included with the object of preventing frauds on the part of those who may benefit under the will and who may therefore be tempted either to forge the testator's signature or to get him to sign a document when he is in no state to understand fully what he is doing. That temptation is greatly reduced if the law requires attestation by independent persons who are not benefited under the will.
The object of this Bill is not to alter the basic principle laid down by the Act of 1837 that the execution of a will must be effected in the presence of two independent witness. It is, as I have said, merely to remove an anomaly which has always been present, having been originally considered by the court in Wigan v. Roland in 1853 and repeatedly followed since then. It has, however, very recently been highlighted in the case of re Bravda, deceased. In that case, your Lordships may remember, two independent witnesses witnessed the signature of the testator but, in addition, two supernumerary persons added their signatures to those of the independent witnesses. Unfortunately, the supernumeraries were, in fact, the daughters of the testator and the sole beneficiaries under the terms of the will in question. It was held, with regret, by the Court of Appeal that, even though the sisters were supernumerary witnesses, a strict interpretation of Section 15 of the 1837 Act had to be followed and the gifts invalidated because, on the facts, it was not possible to find that the sisters' signatures had been 875 appended in any capacity other than that of witnesses.
It was appreciated by the Court that this decision was, on the face of it, contrary to the intentions of the testator; and it was for this reason that Lord Justice Russell and Lord Justice Salmon expressed the opinion that Section 15 of the Act should be amended to prevent a gift to a supernumerary from being invalidated. This Bill implements that suggestion. The main clause of the Bill provides that, in effect, if the facts in the case of re Bravda, deceased were repeated, the gift to neither beneficiary would be invalidated because it could be said of each that without her signature or the signature of any other beneficiary the attestation of the will had been effected fully in accordance with Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837.
My Lords, Clause 1(2) provides for the Bill to apply to all wills of persons who die after the Bill has been passed; and this is obviously right, since a will speaks from death. I feel sure that your Lordships will agree that the passing of this Bill can only be of benefit in that it will ensure that the wishes of a testator are carried out.

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
My Lords, I can lay no claim to legal knowledge, but I feel sure that all noble Lords like myself who are laymen in the law will have been persuaded by the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Kenwood, that this is a Bill which we should favourably consider. It originated in another place and had a simple passage through there, and I hope that it may have an equally simple and swift passage here; because it strikes me that if, as the judges suggested in the Court of Appeal, we are to amend the law in this direction, the sooner we do it the better. I notice from Clause 1(2) that it will apply to the will of any person dying after the passing of this Act, whether executed before or after the passing of this Act. 876 There is therefore an interest in getting it on the Statute Book as quickly as possible.
It happened that I read the proceedings in the Court of Appeal of re Bravda, deceased. I think that anybody who did so, while not questioning that the learned judges applied the law as it stood correctly, must have felt rather hotly within themselves that the intentions of the testator were not being carried out. That clearly created a situation to which Parliament should have regard. That is why I personally would give this Bill my warm support, and I hope that noble Lords will do so generally.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Morris of Kenwood has explained to us so clearly the purpose of this Bill that on behalf of the Government I have little to add. It is a remarkable example of the utility of Private Members' Bills. All Governments get into a position in which for the current Session they cannot, whatever it is, accept any more legislation at all. Here is a case in which the Court of Appeal had to do an injustice and to draw attention to this anomaly. They did so only on February 2. Here we are on April 29, less than three months afterwards, the Bill having already passed the other House. It shows, I think, how useful Private Members' Bills can be. So far as the Government are concerned, I have nothing to say except that we are grateful to Sir Barnett Janner in the other House and to my noble friend for what they have done. We support this Bill and invite your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.

§ LORD MORRIS OF KENWOOD
My Lords, there is nothing further that I need add to what I have already said. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for his remarks. As he said, the affair of re Bravda, deceased, aroused considerable sympathy both in legal circles and outside. I think it right that we should get this Bill on the Statute Book as soon as possible.