[2009]JRC070
royal court
(Samedi Division)
15th April 2009
Before : |
M.C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Le Breton and Le Cornu. |
IN THE MATTER OF THE REPRESENTATION SEEKING TO RATIFY THE MOVEABLE ESTATE OF THE LATE PAMELA MAY BARCLAY NEE TURNER FORMERLY NEEDHAM.
Advocate C. G. Parslow for the Representor.
judgment
the deputy bailiff:
1. This is a Representation by Dinah Needham as Executrix of the Will of the late Pamela May Barclay (née Turner) formerly Needham, to whom we shall refer as the deceased. It raises two points for consideration.
2. The Court is satisfied that the facts are as follows. The deceased died on 21st November, 2007. She was resident in Crete at the time. We have not been given any information as to her country of domicile at the date of her death.
3. On 30th November, 1997, she executed a Will in South Africa where she appears to have been living at the time. This Will was expressly confined to her movable estate situated in Jersey or in Panama and we shall refer to it as the Jersey and Panama Will. It appointed the Representor as Executrix. We have seen a photocopy of the executed Will which has the appropriate attestation clause showing that it was signed by the deceased in the presence of two witnesses who also signed the Will.
4. On 2nd December, 2002, the deceased executed a holograph Will. A Grant of Probate of that Will was obtained in the Court of First Instance in Hania, Crete on 19th June, 2008. It is clear from its terms that the holograph Will deals only with assets situated in Crete. However, the last sentence of the holograph Will reads "I wish my previous Will to be disregarded". It is clear that the holograph Will is a home-made Will. We are quite satisfied that, by the use of these words, the deceased did not intend to revoke the Jersey and Panama Will bearing in mind that the holograph Will dealt only with assets in Crete. Accordingly we rule on the first point, that the revocation clause in the holograph Will did not revoke the Jersey and Panama Will.
5. The second issue arises from the fact that the original of the Jersey and Panama Will cannot be found. We have received affidavits which show the efforts which have been made to find the Will, but to no avail. There is clear authority for the proposition that this Court can admit a photocopy of a Will to probate if satisfied that it is a copy of the original Will which was made with proper observance of the required formalities and has not been revoked; see Re Hewett [1996] JLR 33. Under Article 29(1)(b) of the Probate (Jersey) Law 1999 a Will of moveable estate is to be treated as properly executed if it was executed in accordance with the requirements of the law of Jersey. We are satisfied from the photocopy that this Will was validly executed in accordance with the requirements of the law of Jersey. We are also satisfied that the only persons who would be entitled to inherit on intestacy are the Representor and her sister and they have both confirmed that they wish probate of the Jersey and Panama Will to be granted. From the evidence we have received it is not clear what has happened to the original Will but we are satisfied from the affidavits that there is no evidence that the deceased ever intended to revoke the Jersey and Panama Will.
6. In the circumstances we think that the requirements of Re Hewett are satisfied and we agree that the photocopy of the Jersey and Panama Will should be admitted to probate.
Authorities
Probate (Jersey) Law 1999.