The High Court has ruled that John Coughlan’s 2015 will remained valid after he destroyed it on mistaken legal advice that doing so would revive an earlier will. The court admitted a photocopy of the 2015 will to probate and ordered the cancellation of probate granted for the 2012 will.
Coughlan, who died in February 2021, had made the 2012 will and a second will in 2015. The later will revoked the earlier one and added H. as a beneficiary, giving each of five residuary beneficiaries a one-fifth share. In November 2015, after falling out with H., Coughlan sought to remove her from his will. His solicitor advised him that destroying the 2015 will would revive the 2012 will. He tore up the 2015 document in the solicitor’s presence.
The solicitor later applied for probate of the 2012 will, and the District Probate Registry issued a grant on 1 September 2021. Coughlan’s executors then applied to the High Court to revoke that grant and admit a copy of the 2015 will to probate. H. supported the application; M., a beneficiary under both wills, opposed it. Under the 2015 will, M.’s inheritance was smaller because H. was included.
The court found that the advice was incorrect: under the Succession Act 1965, a revoked will cannot be revived merely by destroying a later will. Revival requires re-execution or a duly executed codicil showing an intention to revive it. The court considered whether Coughlan intended to revoke the entire 2015 will or only H.’s gift. It concluded that when he destroyed the document, he intended to revoke it entirely because he believed that would restore the 2012 will.
Applying the doctrine of dependent relative revocation, the court held that the destruction did not validly revoke the 2015 will because Coughlan’s intention to revoke it depended on his mistaken belief that the 2012 will would thereby take effect. The court acknowledged that admitting the 2015 will gave H. a share contrary to Coughlan’s later wishes, but said its role was to assess the validity of the formal steps taken under the legislation, not to implement testamentary intentions outside a valid will.
The court ordered the photocopy of the 2015 will admitted to probate and revoked, recalled and cancelled the grant for the 2012 will. It gave preliminary views that M.’s argument was reasonable and that the estate should not bear the costs, but left any costs application for a later hearing.