In May, the Law Commission published a long-awaited report on reforming the law of Wills in the UK. Much of the current law in the UK relies on the Wills Act 1837. The report suggests several areas for reform.
The basic need to execute a Will before two witnesses remains, but the report paves the way for the introduction of electronic wills — digitally created, signed, and stored documents. While not yet legally valid in England and Wales, the report includes a draft bill which would allow the law to accommodate the existence of electronic Wills. Electronic wills could improve accessibility, especially for those with mobility issues or international ties. However, concerns remain over authenticity, security, and undue influence. The report also does not suggest how such Wills might be made – that is left to Parliament to legislate on. Until laws change, clients – especially those with digital assets – should ensure they create valid wills under existing legal requirements.
Another proposed reform concerns mental capacity – whether someone can validly make a will. Currently, this is assessed using the outdated Banks v Goodfellow (1870) test. The Law Commission recommends replacing it with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 higher threshold standard, already used in healthcare and other legal areas. This shift could offer clearer, more consistent guidance, especially for ageing individuals or those facing cognitive challenges. However, it would require legal professionals to adjust, raising concerns about education, interpretation, and potential disputes. Still, the reform reflects modern understanding of mental health and aims to better support long-term estate planning in today’s context.
The Commission also proposes lowering the age at which a person can execute a Will from 18 to 16, with courts able to authorize even younger children to make Wills, in exceptional cases. This could assist UHNW families facing complex situations.
Finally, the report also addresses the outdated rule that marriage revokes a will unless expressly stated otherwise. This can lead to unintended intestacy or exploitation through predatory marriages. It recommends abolishing the rule to reflect modern expectations and eliminate confusion rooted in Victorian-era law
By Christopher Salomons & Lu Alaimo, Russell-Cooke, London (United Kingdom)
