Menu
Quick search
WhatsApp Will

Blogs / 20-10-2017 / London

On the 9th October 2017, in the Supreme Court of Queensland Australia, Justice Brown ruled that an unsent text message found in the deceased’s phone constituted a valid form of will. It read:

“DAVE NIC YOU AND JACK KEEP ALL THAT I HAVE HOUSE AND SUPERANNUATION, PUT MY ASHES IN THE BACK GARDEN WITH TRISH JULIE WILL TAKE HER STUFF ONLY SHE’S OK GONE BACK TO HER EX AGAIN I’M BEATEN . A BIT OF CASH BEHIND TV AND A BIT IN THE BANK CASH CARD PIN 3636
MRN190162Q
10/10/2016
MY WILL”

The informal nature of the message, coupled with the fact that it was never sent, did not preclude it from being considered to sufficiently represent the deceased’s intentions nor did it deter the judge from considering whether it could operate as a valid form of testamentary disposition. The judge determined that it could.

It is a decision which coincides neatly with a running consultation initiated by The Law Commission who have it in their sights to recommend changes to the law regarding what constitutes a valid will. Thee basis of the consultation is that the law of wills ‘needs to be modernised to take into account the changes in society, technology and medical understanding’ since the Wills Act 1837 was implemented and which still moderates the validity of wills to this day, some 180 years later.

In the light of this, it is perhaps worthwhile to note that the decision in Australia, despite being made some 9,000 miles away, may well be indicative of a changing tide in the law in our own jurisdiction.

Thank you to Kieran Forsyth, Associate in our Private Client department, for his help in preparing this article.
Disclaimer: This document is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is recommended that specific professional advice is sought before acting on any of the information given.

Related sectors:

TMT

Related news & insights

News / Google and Facebook Content: What are your rights?

15-10-2019 / TMT

We would be lost without Google. It gives us access to all of the articles and websites we could ever want based on a few keywords. However – what if those keywords include your name? What if the articles that appear following that search happened so long ago that you want to put it behind you? We all have access to Google. Is it possible for the world to forget when we have such a vast encyclopedia at our fingertips?

Google and Facebook Content: What are your rights?

News / Supreme Court confirms raised threshold in test for “serious harm” in defamation actions

14-06-2019 / TMT

Lachaux v. Independent Print Ltd and another [2019] UKSC 27 In a significant judgment handed down on 12 June 2019, the Supreme Court confirmed that the requirement to show “serious harm” pursuant to s.1(1) Defamation Act 2013 (“the Act”) significantly raises the threshold for individual claimants in defamation actions.

Supreme Court confirms raised threshold in test for “serious harm” in defamation actions

News / Night Manager style contracts in the blink of an eye

04-01-2016 / TMT

Amid the dazzling thrills of BBC TV's acclaimed recent series based on John Le Carr's novel, The Night Manager, viewers may have been bemused by the sequences (including the gripping finale) where a vast (and of course illegal) arms deal was completed (apparently) through the use of iris recognition technology on a portable device Is this a sign of things to come

Night Manager style contracts  in the blink of an eye