SQE1 Wills and the Administration of Estates practice questions
5 single best answer questions on Wills and the Administration of Estates, written to the SRA specification. Pick an answer, then open the explanation: the correct option, why each of the others fails, and the authority behind it. No sign-up.
Wills — validity and formalities, alterations, codicils, revocation and interpretation, and when gifts fail; the intestacy rules; property passing outside the estate; grants of representation; administering an estate and the liability of personal representatives; claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975; inheritance tax on lifetime gifts and on death; and income tax and capital gains tax during the administration.
Expect distributions to work out — who takes what, and how much tax is due — as well as procedural questions about grants and what the personal representatives should do next.
Question 1
Wills and IntestacyHarder
A man made a valid will in 2016. It appointed his wife sole executrix, gave a legacy of £10,000 to his sister and continued: 'I give the residue of my estate to my wife, but if my wife shall predecease me I give the residue to my brother.' The couple separated in 2018 and the final order dissolving the marriage was made in 2020. The man never made another will or codicil and did not remarry. He died last month, survived by his former wife, his brother, his sister and two adult children from an earlier relationship. The former wife received a lump sum on the divorce and has not remarried. The estate, after debts and inheritance tax, is worth £500,000.
Who is entitled to the residue of the man's estate?
Show the answer and explanationAnswer D+
D
Correct answer
The brother, because the former wife is treated as having predeceased the man.
Dissolution does not revoke the will; the former wife is treated as having predeceased, so the express substitutional gift to the brother takes effect.
Under s.18A Wills Act 1837 property given to a former spouse passes as if she had died at the date of the final order. The residue clause provides expressly for the wife predeceasing, so the brother takes the £500,000 residue.
Section 18A treats the former wife as having died at the date of the final order, so the condition in the substitutional gift is satisfied and the brother takes the residue.
Wills Act 1837, s.18A — Effect of dissolution of marriage on gifts to a former spouse.
Administration of Estates Act 1925, s.46 — Intestacy applies only to property not disposed of by will.
Rule card
Divorce: will not revoked, but the former spouse is treated as having died at the date of dissolution. Look for an express substitutional gift before reaching for partial intestacy.
Why the other options fail
A
Right outcome, wrong reason
The former wife, because the dissolution of a marriage does not revoke a will or invalidate the gifts made in it.
The dissolution does not revoke the will, but a former spouse is treated as having died before the testator, so the gift to her cannot take effect.
Wills Act 1837, s.18A — Where a marriage is dissolved or annulled, any property which the will gives to the former spouse passes as if the former spouse had died on the date of the dissolution or annulment.
B
Adjacent rule
The two adult children in equal shares, taking by substitution under section 33 of the Wills Act 1837 in place of the former wife.
Section 33 substitutes the issue of a child or remoter descendant of the testator who predeceases; the former wife is not the testator's issue and the children are not her issue.
Wills Act 1837, s.33 — Where a gift is made to a child or remoter descendant of the testator who dies before the testator leaving issue, the gift takes effect as a gift to that issue.
C
Adjacent ruleClosest alternative
The two adult children in equal shares, because the gift of residue fails and the residue passes on partial intestacy.
The gift to the former wife does fail, but the will provides expressly for that event, so the residue is disposed of and no intestacy arises.
Ruled out by: The residue clause expressly provides 'but if my wife shall predecease me I give the residue to my brother', so the residue is disposed of and there is no intestacy.
Administration of Estates Act 1925, s.46 — The intestacy rules apply only to property not effectively disposed of by the will.
E
Adjacent rule
The two adult children, the will having been revoked by the divorce.
Marriage revokes a will; dissolution of a marriage does not. The 2016 will remains valid apart from the gifts to the former wife.
Wills Act 1837, s.18 — A will is revoked by the testator's marriage or formation of a civil partnership, subject to the exception for a will made in expectation of that marriage.
Wills Act 1837, s.18A — Dissolution does not revoke the will; it causes property given to the former spouse to pass as if the former spouse had died at the date of dissolution.
Question 2
Formal requirementsEasier
A solicitor posted a will to a client to sign at home. The residue is given to the client's daughter. The client signed in the presence of her neighbour and her daughter, both present together. The daughter signed in the client's presence, and the neighbour signed a few minutes later in the client's presence, after the daughter had gone outside. The client, who is in good health, has returned the will to the solicitor and asks whether anything more is needed.
What should the solicitor do next?
Show the answer and explanationAnswer A+
A
Correct answer
Arrange for the client to execute a fresh will in the office, witnessed by two people who are neither beneficiaries nor married to beneficiaries
The will was validly executed under s 9 Wills Act 1837, but because the daughter attested it, the gift of residue to her is void under s 15; a fresh will should be executed with independent witnesses.
The client signed in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time, and each witness signed in the client's presence, satisfying s 9 Wills Act 1837 (witnesses need not sign in each other's presence). However, under s 15 Wills Act 1837, a gift to an attesting witness is utterly null and void. Because the client is alive and has capacity, the proper course is to have a fresh will executed and attested by two independent witnesses who are neither beneficiaries nor spouses of beneficiaries.
The will was duly executed under s 9 Wills Act 1837, but the daughter's attestation makes the gift of residue to her utterly null and void under s 15. As the client is alive and in good health, the appropriate next step is to arrange for the execution of a fresh will with two independent witnesses.
Wills Act 1837, s 9 — No will is valid unless signed by the testator in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time, each of whom attests and signs or acknowledges in the presence of the testator (but not necessarily in the presence of any other witness).
Wills Act 1837, s 15 — A beneficial gift to an attesting witness or the spouse of an attesting witness is utterly null and void, while the will itself remains valid.
Rule card
Witnesses need not sign in each other's presence under s 9 Wills Act 1837. Attestation by a beneficiary does not invalidate the will, but renders that beneficiary's gift void under s 15. The defect is cured by executing a fresh will with independent witnesses.
Why the other options fail
B
Surface reading
Advise that the will is wholly invalid and the estate will pass on intestacy
Attestation by a beneficiary does not invalidate the will itself. Under s 15 Wills Act 1837, only the beneficial gift to the attesting witness is null and void, and the witness remains competent to prove execution of the will.
Wills Act 1837, s 15 — A beneficial gift to an attesting witness is utterly null and void, but the attesting witness is admitted to prove execution and the will itself remains valid.
C
Adjacent rule
Advise that the will is invalid because the two witnesses did not sign in each other's presence, and arrange for the client alone to sign it again in front of the same witnesses
Section 9(1)(d) Wills Act 1837 requires each witness to attest and sign (or acknowledge) in the presence of the testator, but expressly provides that they need not sign in the presence of any other witness. Furthermore, having the client re-sign before the same witnesses would not cure the forfeiture under s 15.
Wills Act 1837, s 9 — Each witness must attest and sign or acknowledge their signature in the presence of the testator, but not necessarily in the presence of any other witness.
D
Adjacent ruleClosest alternative
Prepare a codicil confirming the will, to be executed by the client and attested by the same two witnesses
Under the doctrine of republication, a codicil confirming a will can save a gift that was void under s 15 Wills Act 1837, but only if the codicil is attested by independent witnesses. If the daughter attests the codicil as well, the gift remains void under s 15.
Ruled out by: Confirmation of a will by a codicil can save a gift previously void under s 15 Wills Act 1837, but only if the codicil is attested by independent witnesses; if the daughter attests the codicil as well, the gift remains void.
Wills Act 1837, s 15 — Any beneficial gift to an attesting witness or to the wife or husband of such person is utterly null and void.
E
Surface reading
Advise the client that the will is valid and that no further action is required
Although the will satisfies the formal execution requirements of s 9 Wills Act 1837, the gift of residue to the daughter is void under s 15 because she attested the will. Advising that no further action is required would leave the client's primary testamentary wish defeated.
Wills Act 1837, s 15 — A beneficial gift to an attesting witness is utterly null and void.
Question 3
CodicilMedium
A man made a valid will three years ago. He telephones his solicitor to say that he no longer wishes a legacy of £10,000 to a former colleague to take effect, but he wants all the other gifts to stand unchanged. The legacy appears on the second page alongside several other legacies that he wishes to preserve. He asks whether he could simply cross it out, or send his executors a signed letter.
How should the solicitor best proceed?
Show the answer and explanationAnswer C+
C
Correct answer
Prepare a codicil for the client to execute with the same formalities as a will.
A single legacy can be revoked by a properly executed codicil, leaving the remainder of the will untouched.
Section 20 of the Wills Act 1837 permits revocation of a will 'or any part thereof' by a codicil executed in the manner required for a will. A codicil expressly revoking the £10,000 legacy achieves partial revocation while leaving the client's other gifts in force.
Under s.20 of the Wills Act 1837, a codicil executed in the manner required for a will may revoke part of an existing will. A codicil expressly revoking the single legacy leaves the remaining provisions intact, fulfilling the client's instructions.
Wills Act 1837, s.20 — No will or codicil, or any part thereof, shall be revoked otherwise than by another will or codicil executed in manner herein-before required, or by some writing declaring an intention to revoke the same, and executed in the manner in which a will is herein-before required to be executed, or by the burning, tearing, or otherwise destroying the same with the intention of revoking the same.
Rule card
Revocation of part of a will: a codicil executed like a will can revoke a specific gift while leaving the remainder in force. Symbolic destruction and unexecuted writings do not revoke gifts unless words are rendered completely non-apparent.
Why the other options fail
A
Adjacent rule
Prepare a new will revoking all former wills, since a codicil cannot revoke only part of an existing will.
A codicil can revoke part of an existing will: s.20 of the Wills Act 1837 explicitly provides that a will 'or any part thereof' may be revoked by a later will or codicil, so making an entirely new will is unnecessary.
Wills Act 1837, s.20 — A will or codicil 'or any part thereof' may be revoked by another will or codicil executed in the manner required.
B
Surface reading
Advise the client that his signed letter to the executors will revoke the legacy without witnesses.
Under s.20 of the Wills Act 1837, any writing declaring an intention to revoke must be executed in the manner in which a will is required to be executed; an unwitnessed letter does not satisfy these statutory formalities.
Wills Act 1837, s.20 — Revocation may be by 'some writing declaring an intention to revoke the same, and executed in the manner in which a will is herein-before required to be executed'.
D
Adjacent ruleClosest alternative
Advise the client to tear off and destroy the second page containing the legacy.
Tearing off and destroying the second page would also destroy the other legacies on that page, directly contrary to the client's express instruction that all the other gifts must stand unchanged.
Ruled out by: The second page contains other gifts that the man wants to keep; tearing off and destroying that page would destroy those other gifts as well as the legacy, defeating his instructions.
Wills Act 1837, s.20 — A will or codicil, or any part thereof, may be revoked by burning, tearing, or otherwise destroying the same with the intention of revoking it.
E
Surface reading
Advise the client that crossing out the legacy in his own hand and writing 'revoked' beside it will be effective.
Scoring through wording and writing 'revoked' is merely symbolic destruction rather than physical destruction under s.20 of the Wills Act 1837; unless the alteration is executed with the formalities required for a will, or the original words are completely obliterated so that they are no longer apparent, the original gift remains valid.
Wills Act 1837, s.20 — A will or any part of it may be revoked by burning, tearing, or otherwise destroying it with the intention of revoking it; striking through words does not constitute destruction.
Cheese v Lovejoy (1877) 2 PD 251 — Striking lines through parts of a will and writing words of revocation upon it constitutes symbolic destruction, which is insufficient to effect revocation under the statute.
Question 4
Personal representativesHarder
A woman died in June last year. Eighteen months before her death she gave £300,000 in cash to her nephew, who has since emigrated and cannot be traced. No inheritance tax has been paid on that gift. Her will leaves her residuary estate, worth £400,000, to her sister. Her executors obtained probate four months after the death. Fourteen months have now passed since the end of the month in which she died, and nothing has been distributed from the residuary estate.
Which of the following best describes the position on liability for the inheritance tax attributable to the gift?
Show the answer and explanationAnswer C+
C
Correct answer
The nephew is primarily liable, but the executors became liable once the tax remained unpaid twelve months after the end of the month of death.
Tax on a failed potentially exempt transfer is primarily the donee's; the personal representatives become liable if it is still unpaid twelve months after the end of the month of death, and then only up to the value of the assets they have or could have received.
The gift eighteen months before death is a failed potentially exempt transfer. The nephew, as transferee, bears primary liability. Because the tax remains unpaid and more than twelve months have elapsed since the end of the month of death, the executors are now within the class of persons liable, subject to the statutory limit on their liability.
Primary liability falls on the donee; the personal representatives are the statutory backstop for unpaid tax on a lifetime transfer after twelve months, and their liability is capped by reference to the assets they have received or might have received.
Inheritance Tax Act 1984, s.199 — Identifies the persons liable for tax on a chargeable lifetime transfer, including the transferee and the transferor's personal representatives.
Inheritance Tax Act 1984, s.204 — Limits personal representatives' liability for inheritance tax by reference to the assets received or which they might have received.
Inheritance Tax Act 1984, s.211 — Tax on property vesting in the personal representatives is borne as a general testamentary expense.
Rule card
Lifetime transfer becoming chargeable on death: donee primarily liable; personal representatives liable for unpaid tax after twelve months from the end of the month of death, limited to the assets received or which might have been received. Tax on the free estate, by contrast, is borne as a general testamentary expense.
Why the other options fail
A
Adjacent rule
The executors must pay the tax out of the residuary estate as a general testamentary expense.
The general testamentary expense rule applies to tax on property in the United Kingdom which vests in the personal representatives; the cash given away eighteen months before death never vested in them.
Inheritance Tax Act 1984, s.211 — Tax on property in the United Kingdom which vests in the personal representatives and was not comprised in a settlement immediately before the death is borne as part of the general testamentary expenses.
B
Surface readingClosest alternative
The executors have no liability for the tax on the gift; liability rests solely on the nephew.
The transferee is primarily liable, but that liability is not exclusive: the personal representatives may be pursued once the tax has remained unpaid for twelve months from the end of the month of death.
Ruled out by: Fourteen months have passed since the end of the month in which she died and the tax is still unpaid, which is exactly what brings the executors within the class of persons liable.
Inheritance Tax Act 1984, s.199 — The transferee of a chargeable lifetime transfer is among the persons liable for the tax on the value transferred.
D
Adjacent rule
The executors are jointly liable with the nephew for the whole of the tax from the date of death, without any limit on the amount recoverable from them.
Personal representatives are not liable from the death for tax on a lifetime transfer, and in any event their liability is limited by reference to the assets they received or might have received.
Inheritance Tax Act 1984, s.204 — Caps the liability of personal representatives for inheritance tax by reference to the assets received or which they might have received.
E
Right outcome, wrong reason
The tax must be paid out of the £400,000 residuary estate as a testamentary expense, and the executors may afterwards recover the amount from the nephew.
The burden does fall ultimately on the donee, but the residue is not the source of payment: the testamentary expense rule is confined to property vesting in the personal representatives.
Inheritance Tax Act 1984, s.211 — Tax on property vesting in the personal representatives is borne as a general testamentary expense, subject to any contrary direction in the will.
Question 5
Preserve the value of the estateMedium
A man died three weeks ago. His will leaves his entire estate to his two adult children and appoints a family friend as sole executor. The estate includes an unoccupied house, whose contents include two valuable paintings, and a portfolio of quoted shares which has fallen by 15% since the date of death. The executor has instructed solicitors, but the inheritance tax account has not yet been submitted and neither has the application for the grant of probate. The buildings and contents insurance on the house expired last week.
What should the executor do next?
Show the answer and explanationAnswer B+
B
Correct answer
Insure the house and its contents against loss or damage without delay.
The executor's immediate duty is to secure and preserve the estate's assets, which here means reinstating insurance on the empty house and its contents.
The house is unoccupied, contains valuable paintings and is uninsured. An executor's authority runs from death, so the cover should be put in place at once rather than after the grant or after the tax account is filed.
The duty to collect in and preserve the estate requires the executor to secure vulnerable assets. An unoccupied house containing valuable paintings with lapsed cover is the obvious immediate risk.
Administration of Estates Act 1925, s.25(a) — Duty to collect and get in the real and personal estate of the deceased and administer it according to law.
Rule card
Preserve the estate: secure and insure vulnerable assets immediately; an executor may act from the date of death.
Why the other options fail
A
Surface reading
Sell the portfolio of quoted shares immediately to prevent any further fall in their value.
There is no duty to liquidate a fallen portfolio at once; the executor must act prudently, and a forced sale three weeks after death is not the pressing step where insurance has lapsed.
Administration of Estates Act 1925, s.25(a) — The duty is to administer the estate according to law, which requires prudent management rather than immediate realisation of every asset.
C
Adjacent ruleClosest alternative
Wait until the grant of probate is issued before dealing with the house or its contents.
An executor's authority derives from the will and takes effect from death, so protective steps can and must be taken before the grant. Waiting would leave the house and paintings uninsured.
Ruled out by: The executor's title comes from the will, not the grant, so the fact that the probate application has not been submitted does not prevent protective action.
Administration of Estates Act 1925, s.25(a) — The personal representative is under a duty to collect and get in the estate and administer it according to law.
D
Civil-law intuition
Ask the two adult children to arrange cover, because the estate passes to them at the date of death.
The assets vest in the executor for the purposes of administration, not in the beneficiaries; responsibility for protecting them is the executor's.
Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, s.18(2)(a) — In applying the Part to personal representatives, references to beneficiaries are replaced by references to persons interested in the due administration of the estate.
E
Adjacent rule
Take no step in relation to the house until the inheritance tax account has been submitted and any tax due has been paid.
The inheritance tax account and the grant application are separate from the executor's continuing duty to preserve the assets; protective steps come first.
Administration of Estates Act 1925, s.25(a) — The duty to collect in and administer the estate applies from death and is not postponed until tax is accounted for.
Where candidates lose marks in Wills and the Administration of Estates
Marriage revokes an earlier will unless the will shows it was made expecting that marriage and was not to be revoked by it (Wills Act 1837, s 18). Divorce does not revoke a will; the former spouse is treated as having died (s 18A).
A gift to the testator's child or remoter descendant who dies first does not lapse if they leave issue alive at the testator's death: those issue take instead, unless the will shows otherwise (Wills Act 1837, s 33).
On intestacy with issue, the surviving spouse or civil partner takes the personal chattels, a statutory legacy of £322,000 (deaths from 26 July 2023) and half of the rest absolutely (Administration of Estates Act 1925, s 46).