Revocation, republication and revival

Revocation

A Will may be revoked through operation of law (involuntary revocation) or by a deliberate act of the testator (voluntary revocation). A Will is revocable by law automatically on:

  1. marriage

  2. civil partnership

According to section 20 of the Wills Act 1837 (WA 1837) voluntary revocation may be effected by:

'…another Will or codicil executed in manner herein-before required, or by some writing declaring an intention to revoke the same and executed in the manner in which a Will is herein-before required to be executed, or by the burning, tearing, or otherwise destroying the same by the testator, or by some person in his presence and by his direction, with the intention of revoking the same.'

Revocation may be presumed to have occurred where the Will is mutilated or lost. Both presumptions are rebuttable by evidence to the contrary.

See Practice Note: Revocation of Wills.

Republication

WA 1837, s 22 permits two methods of republication, either express or constructive. If either method is used, the Will is republished. The effect of republication is mainly to change the

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Private Client News

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at section 75A FA 2003 applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Private Client by content type :

Popular documents