Bear v Bear; Jordan v Bear

In the case of Bear v Bear; Jordan v Bear, the dispute primarily revolves around the validity of various wills made by the deceased, along with claims for benefits arising from a personal care relationship. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The first probate claim concerns the wills made in 2019, 2016, and 2015, while the second, related claim involves an alleged promise of benefit to a friend of the deceased. The parties proposed a resolution where the executors renounce and an attorney grant is issued based on a rectified copy of the penultimate will. The court was tasked with deciding several legal issues, including whether to accept the proposed settlement, whether to pass over the last will, and if the evidence of the deceased's forgetfulness was sufficient to do so. The original 2016 will was missing, and the court needed to consider the principles regarding proof of lost wills and the presumption of revocation. Additionally, the principles governing rectification and extension of time for the will, as well as the ability of executors to renounce and the principles of attorney grants, were examined.

The court found that the principles guiding the acceptance of a compromised settlement of the probate claim included ensuring fairness to all parties involved and adherence to the statutory framework. The court determined that passing over the last will of the deceased was not appropriate, given the evidence of the deceased's cognitive capacity and other factors. The court also ruled that the evidence of forgetfulness alone was insufficient to pass over the final will. Regarding the missing 2016 will, the court outlined the principles for proving lost wills and considered the presumption of revocation. The principles of rectification and extension of time were applied, allowing for the rectification of the will naming an executrix outside the jurisdiction. The executors' right to renounce was assessed, and the principles of attorney grants were considered in light of the unsigned power of attorney. The court further examined whether non-active parties and beneficiaries were bound by the outcome of the proceedings and decided on the appropriateness of issuing a special grant of administration pending the issuance of letters of administration with the will annexed.

The court's final orders included the renouncing of the executors, the issuance of an attorney grant, and the rectification of the will naming the executrix. The court also addressed ancillary issues such as dispensing with the administration bond and the allocation of costs. The court ensured that all parties' interests were considered and ruled on the appropriate steps for granting administration and the implications of the proposed settlement for all involved parties.