SUCCESSION — contested probate — validity of two wills made in 2017 under which large bequests made to doctor — lack of knowledge and approval alleged — consideration of suspicious circumstances — probate undue influence alleged — no challenge to testamentary capacity of the deceased — no issue of valid execution — distinction between undue influence in probate and in equity — whether presumption of undue influence in probate applies where testator is enfeebled, relationship of doctor and patient exists and where testator was never married, had no close family and few friends — where sizable estate — where fraud alleged — where beneficiary introduces own solicitor to the testator but is otherwise not involved in the instructions for or preparation of wills — where no direct evidence of pressure or coercion — consideration of circumstantial evidence — knowledge and approval established, no finding of probate undue influence or fraud
EQUITY — undue influence — whether equity can apply or extend its principles respecting undue influence and dispositions inter vivos to subject gifts under a will to a trust in favour of residuary or past beneficiaries — where presumptive relationship of undue influence exists — where factual findings establish knowledge and approval — presumption arising from relationship of parties rebutted
EQUITY — unconscionable conduct — whether unconscionable conduct applicable to dispositions inter vivos can be extended to invalidate wills or parts thereof — whether acceptance or retention of benefits under a will amounts to unconscionable conduct in the absence of any dealing, transaction or inter vivos arrangement between testator and beneficiary
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Alexakis v Masters (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Alexakis v Masters (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 509
Case
[2023] NSWSC 509
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Alexakis v Masters (No 2) involved a dispute concerning the validity of two wills executed by the deceased, who made substantial bequests to a doctor. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issue before the court was whether the wills were validly executed and whether there was undue influence or fraud in the procurement of the bequests. The court also needed to determine if the principles of equity regarding undue influence could be applied to the wills.
The court examined whether the presumption of undue influence in probate applies in circumstances where the testator is enfeebled, where a doctor-patient relationship exists, and where the testator had no close family or friends. The court considered circumstantial evidence and found that the knowledge and approval of the deceased in relation to the wills were established. There was no direct evidence of pressure or coercion, and the court concluded that the presumption of undue influence did not apply in this case. The court also ruled that there was no fraud, as the beneficiary had introduced their own solicitor to the deceased but was otherwise not involved in the instructions for or preparation of the wills.
The court addressed the equitable principles of undue influence and unconscionable conduct, considering whether these principles could extend to dispositions under a will. The court found that while there was a presumptive relationship of undue influence, the factual findings established the deceased's knowledge and approval. Consequently, the presumption arising from the relationship of the parties was rebutted. The court held that unconscionable conduct applicable to dispositions inter vivos could not be extended to invalidate wills or parts thereof. The court also ruled that acceptance or retention of benefits under a will does not amount to unconscionable conduct in the absence of any dealing, transaction, or inter vivos arrangement between the testator and the beneficiary.
The final orders of the court were that the wills were valid and that the doctor was entitled to the bequests as per the terms of the wills. The court dismissed the claims of undue influence and fraud.