The case of Nathan v Leonard concerned a “no-contest” condition within a codicil which had been made after the will. The issue of contention was over policy concerns regarding the clause, which stated that benefits should be forfeited if the will was challenged.
In her will, the testator directed that her estate should be split into three sections. Two-thirds would go to the first and second defendants, with the final third being held on discretionary trusts for the claimant, his issue as well as two named charities. This included the third defendant.
The testator executed a codicil which contained a specific condition outlining what would happen should a beneficiary wish to ‘contest or disagree’ with the will. Should this be the case, the entire estate would be awarded to the first and second defendants, with the will being overridden.
Following the testator’s death, a claim was brought under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for additional provision to be made from the estate proceeds.
The first and second defendants claimed this brought the testator’s clause into effect.
In order to determine whether the clause within the subsequent codicil was valid in law, an order was made.
One of the main issues raised was whether the risk of losing a benefit under a will would deter applicants from making a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. This would mean it would be contrary to public policy and thus render the condition void.
Mr John Martin QC stated, however, that this was not the case. The condition did not in itself prevent an applicant from making a claim under the Act. If somebody chose to do so and as a result forfeited their benefit under the will, this could be considered by the court when determining the outcome of his claim.
A clause may provide an additional element to consider for those deliberating whether to submit a claim, however that does not justify the clause being void on the grounds of public policy.
The condition did not have to be invalidated by any of the 1975 Act’s policy considerations either, despite it stating that specific dependants of the deceased should not be left in absence of reasonable provision.
However, in this instance, some words from the codicil’s final sentence had been mistakenly omitted.
Due to the impossibility of knowing what those words were, the condition, in this case, failed for uncertainty.
