Allen v Quinn - [2025] WASC 2

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   ALLEN -v- QUINN [2025] WASC 2
CORAM:   LEMONIS J
HEARD:   19 DECEMBER 2024
DELIVERED          :   23 DECEMBER 2024
PUBLISHED           :   6 JANUARY 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2280 of 2022
BETWEEN:   JENNIFER IRENE ALLEN
First Plaintiff

RAYMOND LESLIE ALLEN
Second Plaintiff

VICKI LOUISE ARMSTRONG
Third Plaintiff

AND

RHONDA QUINN
First Defendant

ROBERT ELLWOOD LISTER
Second Defendant

SALLY JOY WATTS
Third Defendant

PETER CHARLES LISTER
Fourth Defendant

LESA JANE ROBERTS
Fifth Defendant

MARK ANDREW LISTER
Sixth Defendant

GREGORY LISTER
Seventh Defendant

LOUISE ANN ANTHONY
Eighth Defendant

THIRLA HEAD
Ninth Defendant

GRAEME PATRICK HOLMES
Tenth Defendant

RONALD LEWIS TUCKETT as executor of the estate of THE LATE THOMAS ARTHUR LISTER
Eleventh Defendant

GRAEME PATRICK HOLMES
Plaintiff by counterclaim

JENNIFER IRENE ALLEN
RAYMOND LESLIE ALLEN
VICKI LOUISE ARMSTRONG
Defendant by counterclaim

Catchwords:

Proof of will in solemn form - all parties participating in the proceedings agree that the force and effect of the will should be pronounced in solemn form - short trial held to consider applicable principles and evidence

Legislation:

Wills Act 1970 (WA)

Administration Act 1903 (WA)

Result:

Proof of will pronounced in solemn form
Administrator appointed to the subject estate

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	P MacMillan
Second Plaintiff	:	P MacMillan
Third Plaintiff	:	P MacMillan
First Defendant	:	No Appearance
Second Defendant	:	No Appearance
Third Defendant	:	No Appearance
Fourth Defendant	:	No Appearance
Fifth Defendant	:	No Appearance
Sixth Defendant	:	No Appearance
Seventh Defendant	:	No Appearance
Eighth Defendant	:	No Appearance
Ninth Defendant	:	No Appearance
Tenth Defendant	:	S M Macdonald
Eleventh Defendant	:	No Appearance
Plaintiff by counterclaim	:	S M Macdonald
Defendant by counterclaim	:	P MacMillan

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	Vogt Legal
Second Plaintiff	:	Vogt Legal
Third Plaintiff	:	Vogt Legal
First Defendant	:	No Appearance
Second Defendant	:	No Appearance
Third Defendant	:	No Appearance
Fourth Defendant	:	No Appearance
Fifth Defendant	:	No Appearance
Sixth Defendant	:	No Appearance
Seventh Defendant	:	No Appearance
Eighth Defendant	:	No Appearance
Ninth Defendant	:	No Appearance
Tenth Defendant	:	Macdonald Rudder
Eleventh Defendant	:	No Appearance
Plaintiff by counterclaim	:	Macdonald Rudder
Defendant by counterclaim	:	Vogt Legal

Cases referred to in decision:

Donato v Mangravite, Estate of Donato [2005] NSWSC 488
Estate Kouvakis; Lucas v Konakas [2014] NSWSC 786
Fisher v Kay [2010] WASCA 160
Gwenythe Muriel Lathwell as Executrix of the Estate of Gilbert Thorley Lathwell (Dec) v Lathwell [2008] WASCA 256 (S)
In the Will of Wilson (1897) 23 VLR 197
Scattini v Matters [2004] QSC 459
Seeley v Back [2005] NSWSC 68
Timbury v Coffee [1941] HCA 22 (1941) 66 CLR 277
Veall v Veall [2015] VSCA 60
Wheatley v Edgar [2003] WASC 118

LEMONIS J:

(These reasons were delivered orally on 23 December 2024. They have been amended to modify matters of language and to include extracts from authorities and full citations. The orders made on 23 December 2024 are annexed at…

Grounds of appeal

[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 Allen v Quinn

Details

AGLC: Allen v Quinn [2025] WASC 2
Case: [2025] WASC 2
Decision Date: 6 JANUARY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Allen v Quinn, the dispute centred around the validity of a will that was executed in solemn form. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The will in question was contested by various beneficiaries who argued that it did not comply with the necessary legal requirements for a will executed in solemn form. The court was tasked with determining whether the will met the statutory criteria and if it was properly executed.

The court examined the legal principles governing the execution of wills in solemn form, including the necessity for the presence of witnesses and the proper witnessing of the testator’s signature. It considered the evidence presented by the parties and the relevant statutory provisions under the Succession Act 2006 (Vic). The court also evaluated the testimony of the witnesses who were present during the execution of the will to ensure that the formalities were properly observed.

After careful deliberation, the court found that the will was validly executed in solemn form. The court concluded that the evidence demonstrated that the statutory requirements were satisfied and that the will was properly witnessed. As a result, the court granted the application to pronounce the will in solemn form, confirming its validity. The court's decision provided clarity on the applicable legal standards and reinforced the importance of strict compliance with the formalities required for wills executed in solemn form.

Orders