Background
Catherine Rigney made a 1982 will dividing her entire estate equally among her three children. Its original was later lost, but the court found it could have been proved from a copy because it was still unrevoked in 2016, when Rigney no longer had capacity to revoke it.
Rigney also completed a pre-printed will form dated 11 August 1999. It again divided her cash and investments equally among her children, but left her home at 66 Naas Road, Dublin 12—about half the estate’s value—to her daughter, Catherine Mary. Although two witnesses signed the attestation clause, Rigney did not sign in the designated signature space; she signed the form’s backing sheet instead.
The Court’s Holding
Ms Justice Stack held that the 1999 will was validly executed under s. 78 of the Succession Act 1965 and admitted it to probate. A signature on the backing sheet was sufficiently at the “foot or end” of the will: it followed the will and appeared on a page containing no dispositive provision.
The court also found it apparent from the document that Rigney intended her signature to give effect to it as her will. The carefully completed form, clear dispositive provisions, appointment of witnesses, and the circumstances surrounding completion supported the inference that she had simply signed in the wrong place, rather than deliberately declined to execute the will. Section 78 is to be applied without excessive technicality where there is no suggestion of fraud.
Key Takeaways
- A testator’s signature need not appear in the form’s designated signature line to satisfy s. 78.
- A signature on a will’s backing sheet may be at the “foot or end” of the will.
- The document as a whole may establish that the testator intended the signature to execute the will.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms the High Court’s practical approach to formal will-execution requirements. Courts should give effect to a genuine, witnessed testamentary act where the statutory requirements, properly construed, are met and fraud is not in issue.
For probate practitioners, the case illustrates the importance of the will’s physical layout and surrounding documentary circumstances when a signature appears in an unusual location.