A simple mix-up when a husband and wife signed mirror wills 13 years ago means they have no value in law, the Court of Appeal ruled today. The ruling disinherits the couple’s intended heir and has left lawyers calling for a more flexible approach to probate law.

In 1999 Mr and Mrs Alfred Thomas Rawlings signed mirror wills that they believed would leave their entire estate to one another or, when they were both dead, to Terry Michael Marley - who was not related to them, but whom they treated as their son.

However, because of a mix-up Mr Rawlings signed the will meant for his wife and she signed the will meant for him. Nobody noticed the mistake until Mr Rawlings, who had survived his wife by three years, died in August 2006.

A dispute then arose between Marley and the Rawlings’ two sons, who argued that their father’s will had been signed by the wrong person and so was not valid.

The High Court agreed, saying that it was not in its power to change the will, even though there was no doubt that the Rawlings had wanted Marley to inherit. It ruled that Rawlings had died intestate and that the sons should inherit the estate. The Court of Appeal today upheld that decision, one that Lady Justice Black, president of the Queen’s Bench Division, said she had ‘reached with great regret’.

Matthew Duncan, a private client partner at City firm Kingsley Napley, said: ‘Today’s decision is disappointing. The courts seem unwilling to step outside the letter of law when judging highly emotive cases involving inheritance. It is obvious that the wills were signed in error and that the couple’s intentions were absolutely clear. This case cried out for a pragmatic decision but, sadly for Mr Marley, it was not to be.’