1. ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE

2. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
1. ARMCHAIR
PRINCIPLE
4. EQUIVOCATION
2. IDENTITY OF
BENEFICIARY
3. IDENTITY
OF SUBJECT
MATTER

3. 1. ARMCHAIR PRINCIPLE
Evidence as to the circumstances surrounding the testator when he made
his Will has always been admissible as an aid in construction in cases of
uncertainty or ambiguity
Boyes V Cook
James LJ: You place yourself, so to speak in the testator's armchair,
and consider the circumstances by which he was surrounded when he made
his will to assist you in arriving at his intention

4. 2. IDENTITY OF BENEFICIARY
The decided cases usually concern the identity of the beneficiary ( object)
or subject matter.
Charter V Charter
the testator, T, by his will appointed "my son, Foster Charter" as his executor and
gave him his residuary estate. He also directed him to pay annuity and allow
maintenance to his mother "so long as they reside together in the same house".
T had had a son named Forster Charter, but this son had died some years before the
testator made his will and he could not be the son referred to.
At the time the will was made, T had two sons, one named William Forster Charter
and the other named Charles Charter. Probate was granted to William Forster Charter.
Charles applied for revocation of the grant on the ground that he, Charles, was the
person named in the will

5. 2. IDENTITY OF BENEFICIARY
Charter V Charter
The judge admitted evidence of the surrounding circumstances when T made his will,
ie that Charles was living at home with his parents and working on T's farm, that
William had lived away from home for some years and seldom visited T, and that T
did not call him "Forster" but always "William" or "Willie". The judge decided in
favour of Charles.
William appealed to the House of Lords. The four members were evenly divided.
Lord Chelmsford and Lord Hatherly thought that the will was not uncertain or
ambiguous. They thought that the reference to "Forster Charter" was a clear reference
to William Forster Charter.
But Lord Cairns and Lord Selborne upheld the decision of the judge. They considered
that the provision in the will under which the executor was directed to pay the annuity
and allow for maintenance to T's widow " so long as they reside together in the same
house" did not apply to William and so there was uncertainty or ambiguity.

6. 2. IDENTITY OF BENEFICIARY
Charter V Charter
Once uncertainty or ambiguity was established, evidence of the circumstances
surrounding the testator at the time he made his will could be admitted under the
armchair principle and this evidence pointed clearly to Charles.
the case is very borderline. The House was evenly divided, so Lord Penzance's
decision at first instance was affirmed.
- Charles won

7. 3. IDENTITY OF SUBJECT MATTER
See Ricketts V Turquand

8. 4. EQUIVOCATION
Equivocation or sometimes called "latent ambiguity" arises if a description
of the object or subject matter of a gift is applicable to 2 or more persons
or things.
Examples are:
"To my son John" and he has two sons called John (Lord Cheyney's case)
"To my nephew Arthur Murphy" where he has more than one nephew
called Arthur Murphy
There is an equivocation as to subject matter of a gift if he makes a gift
of his "manor of Dale" and he has 2 manors of Dale, ie South Dale and
North Dale.

9. Doe d. Westlake V Westlake.
4. EQUIVOCATION
Doe d. Westlake V Westlake.
In these situations, if the Will construed as a whole, 'with the aid of any
evidence as to surrounding circumstances admissible under the armchair
principle, shows to which of the 2 or more persons or things the testator was
referring, there is no equivocation
But if it does not, extrinsic evidence of the testator's dispositive intention,
is admissible. This evidence may take of the instructions the testator gave
for his Will or of declarations made by him as to what he intended to do or
had done. If the equivocation cannot be resolved, the gift fails for uncertainty.