Re Roberts [1991]

Key Notes

• Sir George Jessel MR's Principle:

◦ The court should not declare a will void for uncertainty unless it is "utterly impossible to put a meaning upon it."

◦ It is the court's duty to interpret the terms of a will fairly and provide a reasonable meaning wherever possible.

• Application of the Doctrine:

◦ Courts are reluctant to invalidate testamentary dispositions unless ambiguity is so severe that no interpretation can reasonably be applied.

◦ This reflects the principle of upholding the testator's intentions wherever feasible.

• Relation to Conceptual Uncertainty:

◦ This doctrine aligns with the approach in Re Tuck (1978) and Dundee General Hospitals (1952), where courts sought to resolve uncertainties rather than void provisions unnecessarily.

◦ Even if terms are ambiguous, courts strive to interpret them in a manner that gives effect to the testator's wishes.

• Limitations:

◦ While the court may interpret vague terms, it cannot invent meaning where none exists or where the ambiguity is irreconcilable.

◦ Provisions requiring external expertise or evidence (e.g., decisions by third parties or experts) must still align with the testator's intent.

This case emphasises the judiciary's role in preserving testamentary freedom by resolving uncertainties through fair interpretation, rather than invalidating provisions without exhaustive effort to find meaning.