Supreme Court rules will is valid despite admin error Terry and Michael Rawlings, Mr and Mrs Rawlings's sons, challenged the validity of the will which Mr Rawlings signed. If it was valid, Mr Marley would inherit £70,000, whereas if it was invalid, the sons would inherit the money. In the initial court case, a judge dismissed Mr Marley's claim that the will was valid, saying it did not meet the legal requirements due to the clerical error. Mr Marley appealed to the Court of Appeal, which upheld the judge's decision. However Supreme Court judge Lord Neuberger yesterday ruled the couple had clearly wished to leave their £70,000 savings to Mr Marley, who lived with his adoptive parents at Biggin Hill, Kent, rather than their sons. Matthew Duncan, a partner at law firm Kingsley Napley, said: "The Supreme Court has taken a common sense approach to interpreting wills in the same way commercial contracts have been treated for over 40 years. The law has traditionally been generous in finding ways to fix errors in contracts. The Supreme Court saw no reason why the same principles should not apply to wills. "The judgment is important because the concept of "clerical error" has now been a given a wider meaning by the Supreme Court. To date, it was thought only typing errors could be fixed. This has now been extended to include mistakes arising from office work of a routine nature such as preparing, filing, sending, and organising the actual execution of a will.