Dependant relative revocation
The General Rule
When a testator revokes a will (or part of it), the revocation is normally final.
Example: if I tear up my will, it’s revoked and can’t be revived unless I re-execute or republish it.
🔹 The Exception: Dependent Relative Revocation
Sometimes, a revocation is made conditional on a new will or new gift being valid.
If the new will or new gift fails, the law treats the revocation as never having happened.
In other words, the old will (or clause) is “revived” because the revocation was dependent on the new arrangement working.
📌 Example 1 – Classic case
T makes a will leaving £10,000 to Alice.
Later, T crosses out Alice’s name and writes “Bob” instead, intending to substitute Bob.
But T never signs the alteration properly (so the gift to Bob is invalid).
Result: Under DRR, the revocation of Alice’s gift is treated as ineffective. Alice still takes £10,000.
📌 Example 2 – Whole will
T makes Will 1 in 2010.
In 2015, T writes Will 2 and expressly revokes Will 1.
Will 2 is invalid (e.g. not properly witnessed).
DRR applies → the revocation of Will 1 is disregarded, so Will 1 stands.
🔹 Key Principle
The doctrine protects against “accidental intestacy” when it’s clear the testator only revoked their old will/legacy because they believed the new one would work.
