Robertson or Richardson v Richardson, (1843) 5 D 1117

Citation: Robertson or Richardson v Richardson, (1843) 5 D 1117

Link to case on WorldLII (reference).

Rule of thumb: In interpreting a will, does the intention of the creator matter, or is the letter of the will all that matters? The intention of the creator matters and must be taken into account by the Court when interpreting the terms of the will.

Judgment:

The Court in this case affirmed the principle of ‘no rigid rules of interpretation’ of wills – it affirmed that absolute approaches, either overly literal or overly purposive, cannot be adopted to the interpretation of wills. Evidence of a person’s clear intention cannot be overpowered by a literal interpretation of a will, and blatantly clear and absolutely undeniable literal interpretation of a will cannot be overruled by evidence showing someone may possibly not have intended this. The Court has to take everything into account – all the evidence and the meaning of the will – and weigh it all up. In this case it was on the subject of whether women could be allowed to be beneficiaries in wills. ‘No rule of interpretation can ever be safely adopted, which is not to bend satisfactory expectations or proof of the testator’s intention on the face of the particular deed which is to be construed’, Lord Justice-Clerk Hope at 1123

Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.