BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
PROPERTY, TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST (CHD)
IN THE ESTATE OF RAYMOND HOWARD TISH
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INHERITANCE (PROVISION FOR FAMILY AND DEPENDANTS) ACT 1975
Rolls Building, London EC4A 1NL
B e f o r e :
| (1) AMANDA MARIE TISH
(2) REVAN ELLIOT TISH
(3) ARABELLA CAMILLE TISH
(acting by her litigation friend, Amanda Marie Tish)
- and –
|(1) DAREN THOMAS OLLEY
(2) NICHOLAS LANGLEY
(As executors of the estate of Raymond Howard Tish)
(3) LOUISE TISH
The Second Claimant appearing as a litigant in person
The First and Second Defendants did not appear and were not represented
Robert Sterling (instructed by Gelbergs) for the Third Defendant
Hearing date: 23 April 2018
Crown Copyright ©
Mrs Justice Rose :
I give to my daughter Arabella Camille Tish and my son Revan Elliot Tish as shall survive me free of all taxes Maintenance to be paid in relation to the current Court Order as may be amended in time, therefore if the maintenance is reduced then the reduced level can be accounted for."
The principles applicable to interpreting the Will
"19 When interpreting a contract, the court is concerned to find the intention of the party or parties, and it does this 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. …
20 When it comes to interpreting wills, it seems to me that the approach should be the same. Whether the document in question is a commercial contract or a will, the aim is to identify the intention of the party or parties to the document by interpreting the words used in their documentary, factual and commercial context. As Lord Hoffmann said in Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd  1 All ER 667, para 64, "No one has ever made an acontextual statement. There is always some context to any utterance, however meagre." To the same effect, Sir Thomas Bingham MR said in Arbuthnott v Fagan  CLC 1396, that "[c]ourts will never construe words in a vacuum".
21 Of course, a contract is agreed between a number of parties, whereas a will is made by a single party. However, that distinction is an unconvincing reason for adopting a different approach in principle to interpretation of wills: it is merely one of the contextual circumstances which has to be borne in mind when interpreting the document concerned. Thus, the court takes the same approach to interpretation of unilateral notices as it takes to interpretation of contracts … ."
"The general rule is that, in construing a will, the Court is entitled to put itself in the position of the testator, and to consider all material facts and circumstances known to the testator with reference to which he is to be taken to have used the words in the will, and then to declare what is the intention evidenced by the words used with reference to those facts and circumstances which were (or ought to have been) in the mind of the testator when he used those words. …"
i) periodical payments of £11,000 per year per child should be made until that child reaches 18 or, if later, completes full-time tertiary education;
ii) school fees and reasonable extras incurred should be paid for such school as they attend; and
iii) the figure of £11,000 shall be increased annually in line with the Retail Prices Index.