Anderson v Yongpairojwong

Link copied
Case Copied 52 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Anderson v Yongpairojwong [2024] NSWCA 220
Hearing dates: 24 June 2024
Date of orders: 12 September 2024
Decision date: 12 September 2024
Before: Bell CJ at [1];
Leeming JA at [180];
Mitchelmore JA at [186]
Decision:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Catchwords:

SUCCESSION – Contested grant of Thai will – Executed in circumstances where testatrix ill with cancer – Primary judge held testator had capacity – Relevance of absence of medical records suggesting a lack of capacity – Primary judge taking into account universe of evidence – Suspicious circumstances – Whether established – Desirability of pleading or particularising suspicious circumstances

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 56

Succession Act 2006 (NSW) s 59

Cases Cited:

Barry v Butlin [1838] 12 ER 1089

Bull v Fulton (1942) 66 CLR 295; [1942] HCA 13

Carr v Homersham (2018) 97 NSWLR 328; [2018] NSWCA 65

Craig-Bridges v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2017] NSWCA 197

Croft v Sanders [2019] NSWCA 303

Dedakis v Deligiannis; The estate of Rebecca Deligiannis (also known as Rebeka Deligiannis) [2024] NSWSC 1018

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22

J and E Vella Pty Ltd v Hobson [2023] NSWCA 234

Kerr v Badran [2004] NSWSC 735

Lee v Lee (2019) 266 CLR 129; [2019] HCA 28

Lim v Lim [2023] NSWCA 84

Mekhail v Hana [2019] NSWCA 197

Nicholson v Knaggs [2009] VSC 64

Re Estate of Griffith (dec’d); Easter v Griffith (1995) 217 ALR 284

Veall v Veall (2015) 46 VR 123; [2015] VSCA 60

Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531; [1979] HCA 9

Wild v Meduri (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 669

Zorbas v Sidiropoulous (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 197

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Palisa Anderson (Appellant)
Kijchai Yongpairojwong (First Respondent)
Kulphat Laoyont (Second Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:

L Ellison SC with A Maroya (Appellant)
S Chapple SC with D Yazdani (Respondents)

Solicitors:

Mills Oakley (Appellant)
Swaab (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2023/445224
Publication restriction: N/A
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Equity
Citation:

[2023] NSWSC 1359

Date of Decision:
10 November 2023
Before:
Griffiths AJ
File Number(s):
2021/356682

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

Amonrat Chanta (Amy) was the matriarch of a chain of restaurants operating under the “Chat Thai” brand. Amy died on 10 March 2021, and was survived by her son, Kulphat Laoyont (Pat or the Second Respondent), and daughter, Palisa Anderson (Palisa or the Appellant). Amy executed two wills: one in New South Wales in 2017 (the NSW Will), and the other in Thailand on 24 June 2020 (the Thai Will). The NSW Will provided, inter alia, that Pat and Palisa would receive a roughly even split of Amy’s shares in the companies used to operate her business (the CT Group) and also share the residue of…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Anderson v Yongpairojwong and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2024] NSWCA 220
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a contested grant of probate for a Thai will. The appellant, Anderson, sought to challenge the will of the deceased, Yongpairojwong, who had executed the will while suffering from cancer. The primary judge had found that the testatrix possessed the necessary testamentary capacity at the time of executing the will.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in finding that the testatrix had testamentary capacity, and whether the circumstances surrounding the execution of the will were sufficiently suspicious to warrant a different outcome. The appellant also raised questions about the desirability of pleading or particularising suspicious circumstances in such cases.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the primary judge's decision, holding that the absence of medical records specifically suggesting a lack of capacity did not preclude a finding of capacity. The primary judge had properly considered the entire universe of evidence presented. The court found that the circumstances surrounding the will's execution were not established as suspicious in a manner that would invalidate the will. The court also noted that while pleading suspicious circumstances is desirable, its absence did not automatically lead to a different conclusion if the evidence otherwise supported the will's validity.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.