Wolyncevic v Cameron

The case of Wolyncevic v Cameron involved a dispute regarding the construction and effect of a testamentary disposition in a will. The dispute arose after the will of the deceased, dated 15 July 1998, was admitted to probate on 11 September 2001. The will contained a crucial omission due to a typing error, which resulted in a significant clause being left out. The applicants sought to have the omitted words inserted into the will, arguing that the omission was an inadvertent error and that the court should supply the omitted words to reflect the true intentions of the deceased.

The legal issue before the court was whether it had the jurisdiction and authority to supply omitted words in a will, particularly when the omission was due to a typing error and the application to amend the will was not filed within the six-month period after the grant of probate. The applicants argued that the omission was not intentional and that the true intentions of the deceased could be discerned from the context of the will. The respondents contended that the court should not interfere with the will in such circumstances and that the omission should not be corrected.

The court held that it had the authority to supply omitted words in a will when the omission was inadvertent and the true intentions of the deceased could be ascertained. The court noted that the omission in this case was due to a typing error and that the applicants had demonstrated that the omitted words were necessary to give effect to the deceased’s intentions. The court also considered that the delay in filing the application did not preclude it from exercising its jurisdiction to correct the will. Consequently, the court ordered that the omitted words be inserted into the will, reflecting the true intentions of the deceased.

In summary, the court granted the application to insert the omitted words into the will, despite the delay in filing the application. The court found that it had the jurisdiction to supply omitted words in a will when the omission was inadvertent and the true intentions of the deceased could be ascertained. The court’s decision ensures that the will accurately reflects the deceased’s intentions, despite the typing error that led to the omission.