Slightly odd question about detail when writing a will

[MsMarch]

If you are leaving your estate to your two children - Marth and Benjamin. In your will, should it say - "to my two children, Martha Jones, and Benjamin Jones" or is it okay to say, "to my children, Martha and Benjamin Jones".

I suspect that the latter is technically fine but I'm asking whether that would be considered best practice? Should the children's details be added as well - address, dob etc? Or is that not necessary?

I just went and had a look at my own will.

It says, following your example, eg "to my daughter Martha Abigail Jones" and "to my son Benjamin Zachariah Jones" but we are leaving certain things to each of them individually so it is not just a case of splitting everything between them.

It makes it very clear exactly who is intended. There may be complications if you also have a niece or sibling or aunt etc who is also called Martha Jones if you don't specify that you are talking about a child.

Adding a dob or other details really isn't necessary though unless you are estranged from them and your executors may have trouble tracing them.

Usually in legal documents you would say the name the first time so Martha Susan Jones of address (hereinafter referred to as 'my Daughter') etc

You don't have to put the names at all. Simply saying "to my children" is fine. All that matters is that it is clear who you mean.

"All that matters is that it is clear who you mean."

This is the relevant part. There was a case in the High Court three days ago where:

"Simply saying "to my children" is fine."

very definitely led to problems.

In summary, the father left his estate worth around £15 million to:

"the children and remoter issue of the Settlor now in being or born hereafter"

Only it turned out that one of his sons wasn't actually his son (the mother had had a one night stand and got pregnant by another guy - as evidenced by a DNA test).

So the son, who was the biological son of the deceased, then went to court to say that his half-brother should not be entitled to any of the money.

The court said that, in the circumstances of this case, that "children" did also include the boy he treated as his own son.

At para 106:

"It is right, of course, that in time honoured fashion the person who drafted the settlement provided for a class that left room for expansion rather than using the more direct choice of naming Edward and Jonathan. That drafting decision cannot be ignored. However, it is displaced by the context for the reasons I have given."

Marcus v Marcus [2024] EWHC 2086 (Ch)
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2024/2086.html

and also reported in the Times, here with a share token:

https://www.thetimes.com/article/a394b6fd-b9bb-439a-90ac-1ab9b62189b3?shareToken=8ddb776e1aac3d32efed7fb7d9fc3ca6