That was the central question that the High Court had to answer in Coulson v Paul.
Background:
The claimant is the biological daughter of John Paul, the testator's son, while the defendant was his brother. The claimant had been adopted at an early age by the new husband of her mother. The brothers were the only children of Allan Paul who died on 19 April 2021, leaving a will dated the 24th October 2012. The will was very short and left the estate to John but contained a clause in the event that the son predeceased his father which came to pass. The father did not want to leave anything to his other son as he felt he had “provided handsomely for him in his lifetime”.
John Paul and the daughter slowly built their relationship back to the point that he considered her as his daughter and left her 50% of the proceeds of his property at 10 Farm Road.
The claimant argued that she should be seen as a child under the proper interpretation of the grandfather’s will, despite being adopted, thereby inheriting the estate.
Decision:
The Chancery Division held that there were no justifications to interpret the Will other than in accordance with Section 67(6) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The claimant is, in law, the child of her adoptive father. For another interpretation, there should have been contrary indications. The Judge also noted that “It is not suggested that John Paul then had children, so that phrase must contemplate the possibility of children in the future”.
The Judge was only prepared to look at the evidence demonstrating Allan Paul’s intention within the meaning of Section 21. However, in his opinion, such evidence does not overcome the obstacle that the words used by Allan John exclude the claimant. Even if some evidence demonstrates that John Paul considered the claimant to be his daughter in 2016, it was not demonstrated that the grandfather treated her as the daughter of his son in 2012.
Further, the Court was not satisfied that the will had failed to carry out the testator’s intentions because of a clerical error or a failure to understand his instructions within the meaning of Section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982. It followed that the claim failed.
Implications:
This case not only highlights the importance of having a clear will drafted but also of the need to review a will in case of changes in circumstances. From the facts, the grandfather did not want his second son to inherit but did not take sufficient steps to avoid such an outcome.
Courts are bound by the law and cannot allow a person to be considered an adoptive child under one law and a biological child under another set of rules. There was no contrary indication to justify the interpretation of the will other than in accordance with Section 67(6) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.