Interpreting an ambiguous will

A will can be a difficult document to interpret.  However, some wills are simply ambiguous, remaining unclear even when read with a legal eye.

This article considers the key principles used to interpret wills, along with examples of how the courts have resolved ambiguities.

The general approach to interpreting wills

The starting point for interpreting a will is set out in the Supreme Court case of Marley v Rawlings.^[1] A will must be interpreted:

to find the intention of the party or parties […] by identifying the meaning of the relevant words,

(a) in the light of

(i) the natural and ordinary meaning of those words,

(ii) the overall purpose of the document,

(iii) any other provisions of the document,

(iv) the facts known or assumed by the parties at the time that the document was executed, and

(v) common sense, but

(b) ignoring subjective evidence of any party’s intentions.

Section 21 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 sets out additional rules about the evidence that can be considered:

(1)          This section applies to a will –

(a)          in so far as any part of it is meaningless;

(b)          in so far as the language used in any part of it is ambiguous on the fact of it;

(c)           in so far as evidence, other than evidence of the testator’s intention, shows that the language used in any part of it is ambiguous in light of surrounding circumstances.

(2)          In so far as this section applies to a will extrinsic evidence, including evidence of the testator’s intention, may be admitted to assist in its interpretation. to a will extrinsic evidence, including evidence of the testator’s intention, may be admitted to assist in its interpretation.

This section means that the evidence that can be used to interpret an ambiguous will is wider than the evidence that can be used to interpret, say, an ambiguous contract:

• An ambiguous contract must be interpreted objectively: taking into account the information available to both parties, what would a reasonable person have understood the parties to have agreed?

• However, an ambiguous (or meaningless) will can also take into account what the testator – the person making the will – subjectively intended the will to do, regardless of whether this was apparent from the will itself.

An example of how this evidence can be considered is Partington v Rossiter.^[2]  In this case, the will dealt with the testator’s property and investments ‘in the UK’. The issue was whether the testator’s substantial assets in Jersey were dealt with by this will. 

Colloquially, Jersey might be regarded as part of the UK. However, in legal terms Jersey (and the other Channel Islands) are not part of the United Kingdom but instead part of the Duchy of Normandy, which has its own legislature and legal system. A strict interpretation of ‘in the UK’ would therefore exclude the assets in Jersey.

However, the judge identified several features that indicated that the testator intended his assets in Jersey to be treated as property and investments ‘in the UK’:

–              One of the specific legacies that the testator had included in a draft of the will concerned his assets in Jersey.

–              While the testator had been advised to prepare a will for each of the other countries in which he held assets – and had confirmed to his solicitor that he was doing so – it did not appear that there was any other will that could deal with his assets in Jersey.

–              After making the will, the testator asked his solicitors to amend the will to refer to his assets ‘in the UK (incl Jersey)’.  This change was not made before the testator’s death.

Taking into account this evidence, the judge held that ‘in the UK’ should, in this context, be read as including the testator’s assets in Jersey.

Assisting in interpretation: avoiding intestacy

In considering the admissible evidence, as referred to in Partington, the court will also take into account that it is unlikely that a testator intends not to deal with all their assets under their will(s) (i.e. to leave themselves partially intestate).

This presumption – along with other evidence – was used in the case of Vucicevic v Aleksic.[3]  In this case, the testator, who was not a native English speaker, had made their own will to dispose of their sizeable estate. One of the issues was what was meant by a gift of ‘all the money. Which is left (after Custom & Inland Revenue)’.

On a narrow reading, “money” would have applied only to cash or bank deposits, so would not have covered any of the testator’s financial investments. Therefore, if interpreted narrowly, the testator would have failed to have disposed of these investments.

The court took into account various factors, including (1) the presumption that it was unlikely that he had intended to fail to dispose of these assets and (2) evidence that in the testator’s native Serbian ‘money’ would normally be translated into a word that included assets such as shares and unit trusts.

Taking this into account, the Court held that “money” in this context included the remainder of the testator’s estate, including non-money financial assets.

A more recent case in which the courts have had to interpret an ambiguous will is Bonham v Stringer.^[4]  The clause in question provided for the executors to divide the estate into ‘four parts of equal value and to hold them on the following trusts’.  The will then set out what should be done with only three parts of the estate. The executors were therefore concerned that there may be a partial intestacy: that the fourth part of the estate was to be distributed in accordance with intestacy rules rather than the terms of the will.

The judge held that the will should be read as if there were only three parts of the estate.  The testator did not show any intention that the estate should be partially intestate.  Further, the detail of the clause made it clear that the testator intended to benefit three categories of people, not four.  Accordingly, the will was interpreted on the basis that the estate would only be divided into three parts.

Beyond interpretation

As reflected in the above cases, the courts have a degree of flexibility in interpreting a will to attempt to give effect to the testator’s intentions.

Where interpretation of a will cannot lead to this result – normally because the words in the will are too different from the testator’s intentions – it may be possible for a will to be formally ‘rectified’, or corrected.  However, that is a subject for another article.

Contact us

If you are in a situation where you are affected by any of the issues raised above, please contact Michael Booth at mbooth@prettys.co.uk. You can also learn more about our services here.

---

[1] [2014] UKSC 2. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uksc/2014/51.

[2] [2021] EWCA Civ 1564. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/1564.html

[3] [2017] EWHC 2335 (Ch). https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/ch/2017/2335.

[4] [2025] EWHC 28 (Ch). https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/ch/2025/28.