## Facts

- Charles Groffman had a solicitor draft a will but did not execute it at the solicitor’s office.
- At a social gathering at David Block’s home, Groffman arranged for Block and Julius Leigh to act as attesting witnesses.
- Groffman had already signed the will before the gathering and kept it in his inside coat pocket.
- Because of limited space, Groffman and Block went into a dining room; Groffman showed Block his signature and asked Block to sign as witness in Groffman’s presence.
- Block signed and returned to the lounge.
- Leigh later went with Groffman into the dining room and signed as the second witness in Groffman’s presence, but in Block’s absence.
- The two witnesses were never present together when Groffman signed or when he acknowledged his signature.
- After Groffman’s death, the executors sought probate; the widow objected because intestacy would give her the entire estate.

## Issues

1. Whether a will satisfies the statutory attestation requirement when each witness signs in the testator’s presence, but the witnesses sign at different times and not in each other’s presence.
2. Whether the testator’s separate acknowledgments to each witness can satisfy the requirement that acknowledgment occur “in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time.”

## Decision

- The court refused probate and held the will invalid.
- Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 requires the testator to sign or acknowledge his signature in the presence of at least two witnesses who are present together at the same time.
- Because Block and Leigh were not simultaneously present when Groffman acknowledged (or signed) his signature, the statutory condition was not met.
- The estate passed by intestacy.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory will-execution formalities are mandatory; evident testamentary intent does not cure noncompliance.
- The “presence” requirement for attestation demands simultaneous presence of two witnesses at the moment of the testator’s signing or acknowledgment.
- Sequential witnessing, where each witness signs in the testator’s presence but not in the other witness’s presence, is insufficient.
- Courts applying strict compliance lack authority to dispense with or relax explicit statutory execution requirements.

## Conclusion

The will failed because the testator did not sign or acknowledge his signature in the simultaneous presence of two witnesses, and the court applied the Wills Act formalities strictly, resulting in intestacy despite apparent testamentary intent.


In re Groffman, [1969] 1 W.L.R. 733 (Eng. High Ct. 1969)