Skip to main content
WUHLD
← Back to insights

Electronic and Remote Witnessing: Navigating the Transition from Current Law to Law Commission Reform

· 25 min

Executive Summary

English wills law currently occupies a regulatory lacuna following the expiry of COVID-19 remote witnessing provisions on 31 January 2024. While the Law Commission's May 2025 Modernising Wills report proposes comprehensive reforms enabling electronic wills through "reliable systems" and permanent remote witnessing, the Government has welcomed these recommendations without confirming a legislative timetable. Practitioners must therefore navigate a transitional period where physical presence requirements under Wills Act 1837 section 9 are once again mandatory, Banks v Goodfellow remains the governing capacity test despite recommendations for adoption of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 framework, and wills executed remotely during the pandemic face elevated litigation risk. This analysis provides a forensic comparison between current formality requirements and proposed reforms, extracts implementation lessons from comparative jurisdictions, and develops a dual-track compliance strategy for the interim period between current law and anticipated legislative change.

1. The Current Regulatory Position

Wills Act 1837 Section 9: The Restored Framework

The formality requirements for valid will execution in England and Wales derive from Wills Act 1837 section 9 as substituted by the Administration of Justice Act 1982.1 The statutory provisions mandate that no will shall be valid unless:

  • It is in writing, and signed by the testator, or by some other person in the testator's presence and by his direction;
  • It appears that the testator intended by his signature to give effect to the will;
  • The signature is made or acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time; and
  • Each witness attests and signs the will, or acknowledges his signature, in the presence of the testator.

The "presence" requirement has been consistently interpreted by the courts as requiring physical co-location. This interpretation remained unchallenged until the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated emergency legislative intervention to permit alternative execution methods. The requirement serves multiple protective functions: it enables witnesses to observe the testator's demeanour and apparent capacity, it reduces opportunities for fraud or substitution of documents, and it creates a solemn occasion appropriate to the significance of testamentary disposition.

The writing requirement has similarly been interpreted conservatively. The statute does not specify the medium of writing, leading some commentators to suggest electronic documents might satisfy this requirement. However, the interaction between the writing requirement and the physical witnessing obligations has been understood to require a tangible document capable of being signed with a manuscript signature. This interpretation has now been expressly addressed by the Law Commission's reform proposals.

The COVID-19 Remote Witnessing Experiment

The Wills Act 1837 (Electronic Communications) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Order 2020 represented a significant but temporary departure from traditional formality requirements.2 The Order inserted section 9(2) into the Wills Act 1837, providing that for wills made between 31 January 2020 and 31 January 2024, "presence" includes presence by means of videoconference or other visual transmission. This provision was subsequently extended by SI 2022/18.3

The retrospective application to 31 January 2020 was essential to validate wills executed during the initial lockdown period before the legal framework was adjusted. Without this backdating, wills witnessed via video call during the first months of the pandemic would have been formally invalid, creating significant uncertainty for testators and their families.

Crucially, practitioners should note several limitations of the COVID-19 provisions that distinguish them from the broader reforms now proposed:

Electronic signatures were never permitted. The temporary provisions addressed witnessing only; the testator's signature remained subject to traditional requirements of a wet ink signature on a physical document.4 The will itself had to be a physical document that was signed by the testator and then physically transported to each witness for their attestation. This created practical complications: the document might need posting between locations, raising questions about whether the testator's signature had been acknowledged to witnesses who only observed its existence via video.

The provisions were explicitly time-limited. Unlike reforms in comparative jurisdictions that introduced permanent electronic wills frameworks, the English provisions were designed as emergency measures with built-in expiry dates. Parliament did not use the pandemic as an opportunity to modernise wills law permanently, instead opting for a conservative temporary accommodation that would automatically lapse.

Practitioner uptake was limited. Law Society research indicates that only 14% of legal professionals who drafted wills during the pandemic utilised remote witnessing software.5 The majority of practitioners cited concerns regarding heightened undue influence risk, difficulty assessing capacity remotely, and future challenge vulnerability. This cautious professional response reflects the perception that remote witnessing introduced risks that outweighed the benefits of avoiding physical attendance.

Restoration of Physical Presence Requirements

Since 1 February 2024, the legal position has reverted to the pre-pandemic framework. Physical presence of two witnesses simultaneously with the testator at the moment of execution is mandatory for valid will creation.6 Any will executed after this date via video-link witnessing would be formally invalid under section 9.

Practitioners should communicate this position clearly to clients who may have formed expectations based on the temporary provisions. The pandemic normalised remote interactions across many professional contexts, and clients may assume that video-witnessed wills remain an option. Clear advice regarding current requirements is essential to avoid invalid execution.

The restoration of physical presence requirements also has implications for practitioners serving clients with mobility limitations, those in care homes, or individuals located overseas. Alternative arrangements that were available during the pandemic period are no longer permissible, requiring renewed attention to logistics of will execution.

SRA Competence and Supervision Obligations

Solicitors undertaking will drafting must comply with SRA regulatory requirements that have particular relevance during the current transitional period. The SRA's Drafting and Preparation of Wills guidance requires practitioners to maintain competence in this practice area, establish effective supervision systems, implement capacity assessment processes, and maintain documentation of asset information and beneficiary exclusion rationale.7

The guidance emphasises the need for practitioners to stay current with legal developments. Given the significance of the Law Commission's recommendations and the potential for legislative change, practitioners should ensure their knowledge encompasses both current requirements and proposed reforms.

The SRA Code of Conduct paragraph 3.3 imposes ongoing competence maintenance obligations.8 Given the complexity of the current regulatory landscape and anticipated reforms, practitioners should consider whether existing training programmes adequately address both current law compliance and preparation for legislative change. Firms may wish to develop specific training modules addressing the transition period.

2. The Law Commission Reform Framework

Modernising Wills: The May 2025 Report

The Law Commission published its final Modernising Wills report on 16 May 2025, accompanied by a draft Bill for a new Wills Act.9 This represents the culmination of a project initiated in 2017 following concerns that the Wills Act 1837 had failed to keep pace with technological and societal developments.

The Commission's terms of reference invited examination of whether the formalities for execution should be modified to facilitate electronic wills, whether a court should have dispensing power to validate informal wills, and whether the test for testamentary capacity should be reformed. The final recommendations address all these areas comprehensively.

The Government's initial response, published simultaneously, welcomed the recommendations as "an important and timely review of the existing law" and acknowledged that "the current law is outdated, and must embrace change."10 However, the Government confirmed that "the reforms proposed by the Law Commission are significant and wide ranging" and committed only to making "further announcements in due course" without specifying a legislative timetable.

Under established protocols for responding to Law Commission reports, the Government should provide an interim response within six months and a full response within twelve months. As of January 2026, primary legislation has not been introduced. Practitioners should therefore continue to apply current law while monitoring legislative developments.

Electronic Wills: The Reliable System Requirement

The Law Commission's central recommendation regarding electronic wills requires that such documents meet an additional formality requirement: execution through a "reliable system."11 The Commission deliberately avoids prescriptive technology mandates, instead establishing three functional outcome requirements:

Authenticity: The system must link the testator to the document signed, at the time it is signed. This addresses concerns about identity verification and ensures the electronic will can be attributed to the correct individual. Implementation might involve biometric authentication, video verification, or other identity assurance mechanisms.

Integrity: The system must identify the will so it is clearly distinguished from other copy documents. Unlike paper wills where the signed original is physically distinct from photocopies, electronic documents are infinitely reproducible without degradation. The reliable system must address this fundamental characteristic of digital media, potentially through cryptographic signatures, blockchain records, or certified timestamps.

Security: The system must protect the will from being changed or destroyed except by the testator. This requirement encompasses both technical measures against unauthorised access and audit trails documenting any modifications. The security architecture must address both external threats and internal manipulation risks.

The Commission's technology-neutral approach represents a deliberate regulatory philosophy. Rather than mandating specific platforms or technical specifications, the framework permits innovation while setting minimum functional standards. The exact technical specifications are anticipated to emerge through Secretary of State regulations following further consultation, with courts retaining jurisdiction to determine reliability in contested cases.12

This approach has parallels with the Electronic Identification, Authentication and Trust Services Regulation (eIDAS) framework for electronic signatures, where functional outcomes rather than specific technologies determine legal validity. Practitioners familiar with electronic signature law will recognise the regulatory approach.

Remote Witnessing for Electronic Wills

The draft Bill provides that remote presence by way of "a visual transmission" would satisfy the presence requirement for witnesses to electronic wills.13 This proposal differs from the COVID-19 provisions in several respects:

The remote witnessing provisions would apply only to electronic wills meeting the reliable system requirements, not to traditional paper wills. Practitioners anticipating a return to universal video-link witnessing should note this limitation. Paper wills would continue to require physical presence under the proposals.

The provisions would be permanent rather than time-limited, providing regulatory certainty for practice development and technology investment. Firms could invest in technology platforms and training with confidence that the framework would not automatically expire.

The framework contemplates that witnesses might authenticate their attestation electronically within the reliable system, rather than signing a separate physical attestation clause. This would enable fully electronic execution without any physical document handling.

The Dispensing Power: A Philosophical Shift

Clause 10 of the draft Bill introduces a court-administered dispensing power that represents a fundamental reorientation of English wills law from formality-based to intention-based validity.14 The provision allows courts to deem formality requirements met in relation to a will where satisfied that the document reflects the testator's "settled testamentary intentions."

The draft clause provides:

"10(1): Where one or more of the formality requirements are not met in relation to a will, a person may make an application to the court for an order under this section. (2): The court may, by an order under this section, deem the formality requirements to be met in relation to the will."

This intention-based approach diverges from substantial compliance frameworks in certain Commonwealth jurisdictions. Rather than requiring near-compliance with formalities, the English proposal would permit courts to validate documents with significant formal defects provided the evidential threshold regarding testamentary intent is satisfied.

Professional commentary has expressed both support and concern regarding this proposal. Hayley Robinson of Stevens & Bolton welcomed greater flexibility but noted concerns about "giving the court a jurisdiction to approve formally invalid wills."15 The Law Society President Richard Atkinson welcomed the proposed amendments while emphasising the importance of safeguards ensuring testamentary capacity and freedom from undue influence.

The dispensing power would have significant implications for contentious probate practice. Where a will is formally defective, the focus of litigation would shift from technical validity arguments to evidential questions about the deceased's testamentary intentions. This could increase litigation costs and uncertainty in some cases while providing relief in cases of technical deficiency where the testator's wishes are clear.

Capacity Test Reform: MCA 2005 versus Banks v Goodfellow

The Law Commission recommends replacing the Banks v Goodfellow (1870) testamentary capacity test with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 framework.16 This recommendation addresses several identified deficiencies in the current law:

Temporal misalignment: Banks v Goodfellow predates modern psychiatric understanding and makes no reference to fluctuating capacity or supported decision-making concepts embedded in the MCA 2005. The 1870 test emerged before modern neuroscience and lacks the nuanced understanding of mental capacity that has since developed.

Unprincipled dual regime: Under current law, a person might lack capacity for property and financial decisions under MCA 2005 yet retain testamentary capacity under Banks v Goodfellow. This creates potential for inconsistent professional advice and litigation vulnerability. A donor might validly revoke a lasting power of attorney yet lack capacity to make a will, or vice versa.

Limited practitioner guidance: The MCA 2005 Code of Practice provides detailed guidance on capacity assessment that has no equivalent for testamentary capacity under common law principles. Practitioners assessing testamentary capacity must apply a test developed through case law without the structured framework available for MCA assessments.

The Law Commission proposes that the MCA test would be accompanied by a code of practice specifically addressing testamentary capacity. This would provide practitioners with authoritative guidance on applying the statutory test in the will-making context.

Practitioners should note that as of January 2026, Banks v Goodfellow remains the governing testamentary capacity test. The Law Commission's recommendation has not been enacted, and existing practice regarding capacity assessment should continue pending legislative change.17 Capacity assessments should continue to address the Banks v Goodfellow requirements: understanding the nature of the act and its effects, understanding the extent of property being disposed of, awareness of claims to which regard ought to be paid, and absence of disorder of the mind affecting those matters.

3. Comparative Jurisdiction Insights

Queensland: The Dispensing Power in Practice

Queensland provides the most instructive comparative experience for understanding how intention-based validation operates in practice. Section 18 of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld) empowers courts to validate informal documents as wills where satisfied the deceased intended the document to constitute their will.

The landmark decision in Re Yu [2013] QSC 322 demonstrated the breadth of this power when the Queensland Supreme Court validated an iPhone note as a valid will.18 The deceased had created an unsent text message expressing testamentary intentions before his death. Despite the absence of any traditional formalities, the court found sufficient evidence of testamentary intent to invoke the dispensing power.

For English practitioners, Re Yu illustrates both the potential scope and the evidentiary challenges of intention-based validation. The decision required extensive analysis of the deceased's state of mind, digital evidence regarding the note's creation, and comparison with earlier testamentary documents. Litigation costs in such matters can be substantial, and the outcome uncertain.

The Queensland experience also demonstrates that dispensing powers, once available, tend to be invoked in an expanding range of circumstances. Courts have validated documents ranging from informal letters to electronic messages. This expansion suggests that English courts, if granted similar powers, might similarly extend the principle beyond initially anticipated applications.

Victoria: Formal Electronic Wills Framework

Victoria is the only Australian state with formally recognised electronic wills under amendments to the Wills Act 1997 (Vic).19 The Victorian framework permits execution entirely through electronic means, including electronic signatures, subject to prescribed technical requirements.

Victoria's "remote execution procedure" allows signing and witnessing over audio-visual link, with specific requirements regarding identity verification, document integrity, and witness attestation. The procedural requirements are more prescriptive than the Law Commission's proposed "reliable system" approach, reflecting different regulatory philosophies regarding technology specification versus functional outcomes.

The Victorian experience provides evidence that electronic wills can function within a common law system without creating unacceptable fraud risks. Practitioners in Victoria have developed procedures for electronic execution, and the courts have begun to adjudicate disputes involving electronically executed wills. This practical experience may inform English implementation if legislation proceeds.

New Zealand: Broad Validation Practice

New Zealand's Wills Act 2007 provides a general dispensing power that courts have applied "quite often," particularly for witnessing failures.20 The New Zealand experience suggests that once a dispensing power exists, its use may become relatively routine for technical defects, potentially reducing the incentive for strict compliance with formality requirements.

This normalisation of dispensing power use raises questions about whether formal requirements retain their protective function when courts readily excuse non-compliance. If practitioners anticipate that technical defects will be excused, they may devote less attention to ensuring strict compliance. The protective purposes of formality requirements might thereby be undermined.

Lessons for English Practitioners

Comparative jurisdiction experience suggests several considerations for English practice:

Technology platform development will accelerate. Following legislative clarity, technology providers will develop platforms seeking to demonstrate "reliable system" compliance. Practitioners should monitor this market while avoiding premature technology commitments. Early platforms may not achieve the reliability standards that courts ultimately require.

Litigation patterns will shift. Where dispensing powers exist, contentious probate litigation increasingly focuses on evidential questions of testamentary intent rather than formal validity. Practitioners advising on will challenges should anticipate this evolution. Expert evidence regarding the deceased's intentions may become more significant than technical analysis of execution compliance.

Documentation standards will elevate. In jurisdictions with intention-based validation, comprehensive file documentation regarding the testator's circumstances, capacity assessment, and stated intentions becomes more valuable both for validation applications and defence against challenges. Practitioners should consider enhancing documentation protocols in anticipation of reform.

4. Transitional Risk Management

COVID-Era Wills: Litigation Vulnerability Analysis

Wills executed via video-link witnessing during the pandemic period (31 January 2020 to 31 January 2024) remain valid provided the COVID-19 requirements were satisfied at the time of execution.21 However, these wills face elevated challenge risk on several grounds:

Capacity assessment limitations. Witnesses who observed the testator only via video may have limited ability to recall and testify regarding the testator's mental state. Visual transmission quality, camera angles, and technical limitations may have obscured signs of confusion or distress that would have been apparent with physical presence. Video compression algorithms may have removed subtle facial expressions or behavioural cues that inform capacity judgments.

Undue influence vulnerability. Third parties could have been present off-camera during video-witnessed executions, potentially exercising influence without witness awareness. Unlike in-person execution where practitioners can control the environment, remote execution provides limited assurance regarding who else is present with the testator. The testator might have been subject to pressure or prompting that witnesses could not detect.

Technical integrity concerns. Connectivity failures during execution, recording quality issues, and document handling between video capture and physical signing create potential attack surfaces for validity challenges. Where execution occurred over multiple video sessions or where documents were posted between locations, the chain of custody may be difficult to establish conclusively.

Practitioner perception as evidence. The 14% practitioner uptake rate for remote witnessing suggests approximately 86% of pandemic-era wills were executed under traditional formality requirements despite the available flexibility.22 This low adoption rate may itself become relevant in challenge proceedings, as courts may question why remote execution was chosen when practitioners generally considered it inadvisable.

Re-Execution Recommendations

Practitioners should consider advising clients with COVID-era remotely witnessed wills to execute fresh wills under current formality requirements. This recommendation is particularly relevant where:

  • The testator has capacity and is willing to re-execute;
  • The will involves substantial estate value or complex provisions;
  • Family circumstances suggest elevated challenge risk;
  • The original execution recording or documentation is incomplete or unavailable;
  • The testator's capacity was marginal at the time of remote execution.

Re-execution eliminates litigation vulnerability while providing an opportunity to update testamentary provisions for changed circumstances. The professional fees involved are modest compared to potential contentious probate costs. Practitioners should document the advice given regarding re-execution, whether or not the client proceeds.

Dual-Track Compliance Strategy

Practitioners should implement a compliance strategy that maintains current law adherence while building capacity for electronic wills adoption:

Current law track: Ensure all will execution procedures comply strictly with Wills Act 1837 section 9. Physical presence of witnesses remains mandatory. Documentation should evidence the execution environment, capacity assessment, and compliance with formality requirements. Witness selection should prioritise individuals likely to be available and capable of giving evidence if required.

Reform preparation track: Monitor legislative developments through Parliament.uk and professional body communications. Assess technology platforms claiming "reliable system" readiness against the Law Commission's three functional requirements. Develop training programmes addressing capacity assessment under both Banks v Goodfellow and MCA 2005 frameworks. Consider pilot programmes for electronic execution once legislation is enacted.

Professional Liability Considerations

The transitional period creates specific professional liability exposures:

Advice accuracy: Practitioners must clearly communicate to clients that electronic wills are not currently valid in England and Wales. Any suggestion that electronic execution is presently available could ground negligence claims if resulting documents are challenged. Client communications should be documented.

Capacity assessment competence: If the MCA 2005 test is adopted, practitioners who have relied exclusively on Banks v Goodfellow guidance may face competence challenges. Proactive training on MCA 2005 capacity assessment represents prudent risk management. Firms should review whether current training addresses both frameworks.

Documentation standards: File documentation should clearly reflect which legal framework applied at the date of will execution. This is particularly important during any future transition period when both frameworks may be relevant depending on execution date.

5. Preparing for Implementation

Technology Platform Readiness

When electronic wills legislation is enacted, technology platforms will need to demonstrate compliance with the "reliable system" requirements. Practitioners should assess potential platforms against:

Identity verification capability: Does the platform provide robust authentication linking the testator to the signed document? Consider biometric verification, knowledge-based authentication, and video identification options. The strength of identity verification directly affects authenticity assurance.

Document integrity assurance: How does the platform distinguish the signed original from copies? Blockchain-based solutions, digital certificates, and secure hash algorithms offer different approaches with varying cost and complexity implications. The chosen mechanism should provide audit trails and prevent undetectable modification.

Security architecture: What protections exist against unauthorised modification or destruction? Audit trails, access controls, and encryption standards should be evaluated against professional liability implications. Platform providers should be able to demonstrate security certification or assessment.

Practitioners should avoid contractual commitments to specific platforms until legislative requirements are finalised. Early adopter risk is substantial given regulatory uncertainty. Platforms developed before legislation may not meet the standards ultimately adopted.

Capacity Assessment Competency Development

The potential adoption of MCA 2005 for testamentary capacity would require enhanced assessment competencies. Practitioners should consider:

Training programmes: Professional development addressing MCA 2005 principles, the five statutory principles, the two-stage capacity test, and supporting decision-making requirements. Training should address the interaction between MCA principles and testamentary decisions specifically.

Assessment documentation: Template development for recording capacity assessments against MCA 2005 criteria, distinct from current Banks v Goodfellow practice notes. Documentation should evidence consideration of each statutory element.

Expert instruction protocols: Understanding when medical evidence is required under MCA 2005 standards versus current practice. The threshold for seeking medical assessment may differ under the statutory framework.

File Management and Documentation Protocols

Enhanced documentation protocols should address:

Execution environment recording: Where technologically feasible and client-consented, video recording of will execution provides evidential protection against subsequent challenges. Current data protection requirements and client confidentiality obligations must be satisfied. Recordings should be securely stored with appropriate retention policies.

Testator statement: Consider obtaining contemporaneous written statements from testators confirming their understanding of the will's contents and their reasons for any unexpected provisions, particularly regarding beneficiary exclusions. Such statements may prove valuable in defending against challenge.

Witness details: Comprehensive contact information for witnesses should be maintained to facilitate location if their evidence is required in future challenge proceedings. Witnesses should be informed of their potential future evidential role.

Conclusion

English wills law stands at a significant juncture. The temporary COVID-19 remote witnessing provisions have expired without permanent replacement, leaving practitioners to reconcile traditional formality requirements with client expectations shaped by four years of digital execution options. The Law Commission's May 2025 recommendations offer a comprehensive modernisation framework, but until Parliament acts, the regulatory position remains clear: physical presence is mandatory, Banks v Goodfellow governs capacity assessment, and electronic wills are not valid.

Practitioners should maintain strict current law compliance while preparing for eventual reform. COVID-era wills warrant review and potential re-execution recommendations. Technology platform evaluation should proceed cautiously pending legislative certainty. Competency development addressing both current and anticipated frameworks represents prudent professional investment.

The Government's welcome of the Law Commission recommendations signals likely eventual reform, but the absence of a confirmed legislative timetable means practitioners may navigate this transitional period for some time. Professional vigilance regarding legislative developments, combined with robust current law compliance, provides the appropriate response to this regulatory uncertainty.

CPD Declaration

Estimated Reading Time: 22 minutes Technical Level: Advanced Practice Areas: Private Client, Wills and Probate, Legal Technology, Compliance

Learning Objectives

Upon completing this article, practitioners will be able to:

  1. Identify the current formality requirements under Wills Act 1837 section 9 for valid will execution following expiry of COVID-19 remote witnessing provisions
  2. Explain the three functional requirements of a "reliable system" for electronic wills under the Law Commission's draft Wills Bill
  3. Distinguish between the Banks v Goodfellow testamentary capacity test currently in force and the proposed Mental Capacity Act 2005 framework
  4. Evaluate litigation risk factors for wills executed under the COVID-19 remote witnessing provisions between January 2020 and January 2024
  5. Apply a dual-track compliance strategy maintaining current law adherence while preparing for electronic wills implementation

SRA Competency Mapping

  • A2: Maintain and apply knowledge of the law and technical rules relevant to the provision of legal services
  • A5: Ensure compliance with regulatory requirements
  • B1: Ensure effective client service through assessment of individual circumstances

Reflective Questions

  1. How would the proposed dispensing power change your approach to will validity challenges in contentious probate matters?
  2. What technology infrastructure investments should your firm consider in anticipation of electronic wills legislation, and how might premature commitment create risk for your practice?
  3. How might the shift from Banks v Goodfellow to the MCA 2005 capacity test affect your current client assessment protocols and file documentation practices?

Professional Disclaimer

The information presented reflects the regulatory and legislative position as of 2026-01-28. Regulations, tax rules, and professional guidance are subject to change. Readers should independently verify all information before acting and seek advice from appropriately qualified solicitors, financial advisors, or other professionals for their specific circumstances.

Neither WUHLD nor the author accepts liability for any actions taken or decisions made based on the content of this article. Professional readers are reminded of their own regulatory obligations and duty of care to their clients.

Footnotes

Footnotes

  1. Wills Act 1837 c.26 s.9 (as substituted by Administration of Justice Act 1982 s.17). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4and1Vict/7/26 ↩

  2. The Wills Act 1837 (Electronic Communications) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Order 2020 (SI 2020/952). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/952 ↩

  3. The Wills Act 1837 (Electronic Communications) (Amendment) Order 2022 (SI 2022/18). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/18/contents/made ↩

  4. Government press release: Video-witnessed wills legalisation extended (January 2022). https://www.gov.uk/government/news/video-witnessed-wills-legalisation-extended ↩

  5. Law Society: The use of video witnessing wills through lockdown research report (2021). https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/research/the-use-of-video-witnessing-wills-through-lockdown-report-2021 ↩

  6. Law Society: Video-witnessing wills guidance (updated 2024). https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/en/topics/private-client/video-witnessing-wills ↩

  7. SRA: Drafting and Preparation of Wills Guidance (updated April 2025). https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/drafting-preparation-wills/ ↩

  8. SRA: Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs (April 2025). https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/code-conduct-solicitors/ ↩

  9. Law Commission: Modernising Wills Final Report, Law Com No 411 (May 2025). https://lawcom.gov.uk/publication/modernising-wills-final-report/ ↩

  10. Government response to the Law Commission report Making a Will (May 2025). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-response-to-the-law-commission-report-making-a-will ↩

  11. Law Commission: Modernising Wills Final Report, Chapter 5: Electronic Wills (May 2025). https://lawcom.gov.uk/publication/modernising-wills-final-report/ ↩

  12. Macfarlanes: Modernising wills - the Law Commission publishes its final report (May 2025). https://www.macfarlanes.com/what-we-think/102eli5/modernising-wills-the-law-commission-publishes-its-final-report-102kbjb/ ↩

  13. Law Commission: Draft Bill for a new Wills Act, Volume II (May 2025). https://lawcom.gov.uk/publication/modernising-wills-final-report-volume-ii-draft-bill-for-a-new-wills-act/ ↩

  14. Law Commission: Draft Wills Bill, Clause 10 - Dispensing Power (May 2025). https://lawcom.gov.uk/publication/modernising-wills-final-report-volume-ii-draft-bill-for-a-new-wills-act/ ↩

  15. Law Gazette: Cautious welcome for Law Commission's wills reform blueprint (May 2025). https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/cautious-welcome-for-law-commissions-wills-reform-blueprint/5123323.article ↩

  16. Society of Will Writers: Goodbye Banks v Goodfellow - analysis of capacity test reform (2025). https://www.willwriters.com/blog/goodbye-banks-v-goodfellow/ ↩

  17. Law Commission: Modernising Wills Final Report, Chapter 7: Testamentary Capacity (May 2025). https://lawcom.gov.uk/publication/modernising-wills-final-report/; Hugh James: Modernising Wills Law - The Law Commission's May 2025 Report. https://www.hughjames.com/blog/wills-law-law-commissions-may-2025-report/ ↩

  18. Queensland Law Handbook: Making a Will - dispensing power and Re Yu [2013] QSC 322. https://queenslandlawhandbook.org.au/the-queensland-law-handbook/contracts-money-and-property/wills-and-estates/making-a-will/ ↩

  19. Wills Act 1997 (Vic) ss.8A-8D (as amended by Justice Legislation Amendment (System Enhancements and Other Matters) Act 2021). https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/wills-act-1997; Legal Futures: Electronic wills at heart of overhaul of 188-year-old law (May 2025). https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/electronic-wills-at-heart-of-overhaul-of-188-year-old-law ↩

  20. Law Commission: Modernising Wills Final Report, Chapter 8: Comparative Law Analysis (May 2025). https://lawcom.gov.uk/publication/modernising-wills-final-report/ ↩

  21. Kreston Reeves: The end of remote Will witnessing in the UK (February 2024). https://www.krestonreeves.com/news/the-end-of-remote-will-witnessing-in-the-uk-what-it-means-for-you/ ↩

  22. Law Society: The use of video witnessing wills through lockdown research report (2021). https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/research/the-use-of-video-witnessing-wills-through-lockdown-report-2021 ↩