BROWN -v- WILLOUGHBY [2012] WASC 20
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2012] WASC 20 | |
| Case No: | CIV:2773/2009 | 18 AUGUST 2010 & 30 NOVEMBER 2011 | |
| Coram: | EM HEENAN J | 20/01/12 | |
| 37 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Order for probate in solemn form of will dated 29 March 1999 Order discharging joint administrators upon grant of probate issuing | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DAVID CHARLES ARDEN BROWN ANNE-LOUISE WILLOUGHBY |
Catchwords: | Probate Proof of will in solemn form Two subsequent wills not propounded Incongruities in provisions in later wills Marks of suspicion Large estate Testator later developing dementia Dependent on financial advisor Financial advisor arranged later wills Financial advisor sole beneficiary Possibility of a secret trust No provision for disabled children for whom trust established in earlier wills Renunciation by co-executor Renunciation/disclaimer by residuary beneficiary under two later wills No effort to prove two later wills |
Legislation: | Administration Act 1903 (WA) Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972 (WA) Wills Act 1970 (WA) |
Case References: | Bailey v Bailey (1924) 34 CLR 558 Curtis v Rippon (1820) 5 Mad.434; 56 ER 961 Hoare v Reyburn [2010] WASC 301 In the Estate of the late Leo Rene Raig [2006] ACTSC 96 Macnab v Whitbread (1853) 17D 299; 51 ER 1049 McCormick v Grogan (1869) LR 4 HL 82 Re Cranstoun [1949] Ch 523 Re Grey Smith [1978] VR 596 Re Hodges; Shorter v Hodges (1988) 14 NSWLR 698 Re Paradise Motor Co Ltd [1968] 1 WLR 1125 Re Snowden [1979] Ch 528 Re The Estate of Smith; Ex parte Dickens v Smith, Bolt & Smith [1988] FCA 315 Re Williams [1897] 2 Ch 12 Roebuck v Smoje [2000] WASC 312 Sale v Moore (1827) 1 Sim 534; 57 ER 678 Scarpuzza v Scarpuzza [2011] WASC 65 The Estate of Kirs (deceased) (1990) 55 SASR 61 Thornhill v Thomas [2010] WASC 297 Townson v Tickell (1819) 3 B & Ald 31; 106 ER 575 Voges v Monaghan (1954) 94 CLR 231 Wallgrave v Tebbs (1855) 2 K&J 313; 69 ER 800 Wheatley v Edgar [2003] WASC 118; (2003) 4 ASTLR 1 Will of Doig [1916] VLR 698 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Plaintiff
AND
ANNE-LOUISE WILLOUGHBY
Defendant
Catchwords:
Probate - Proof of will in solemn form - Two subsequent wills not propounded - Incongruities in provisions in later wills - Marks of suspicion - Large estate - Testator later developing dementia - Dependent on financial advisor - Financial advisor arranged later wills - Financial advisor sole beneficiary - Possibility of a secret trust - No provision…
Continue reading Brown v Willoughby
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Brown v Willoughby [2012] WASC 20
- Case
- [2012] WASC 20
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of Brown v Willoughby involved a dispute over the validity of a will and the subsequent administration of an estate. The deceased, Willoughby, had executed a will in 1999 that provided for various family members, including disabled children, by establishing trusts. Later, two additional wills were executed in 2007 and 2008, omitting the disabled children and naming the deceased's financial advisor as the sole beneficiary. The deceased's children and grandchildren sought to have the 1999 will admitted to probate in solemn form, questioning the validity of the later wills and the conduct of the financial advisor.
The court was required to determine whether the later wills were validly executed and whether they should be admitted to probate. This involved assessing the circumstances surrounding the execution of the wills, the incongruities between the provisions of the 1999 will and the later wills, and the potential undue influence exerted by the financial advisor over the deceased. The court also needed to consider the renunciations and disclaimers by the co-executor and the residuary beneficiary under the later wills, as well as the possibility of a secret trust arrangement.
The court concluded that the later wills were not validly executed and should not be admitted to probate. It found that the circumstances surrounding the execution of the later wills were suspicious, including the significant changes in the testamentary provisions and the deceased's later development of dementia. The court held that the financial advisor had exerted undue influence over the deceased, resulting in the execution of the later wills. Additionally, the court found that the renunciations and disclaimers were valid, and that there was no evidence of a secret trust arrangement. Consequently, the court ordered that the 1999 will be admitted to probate in solemn form and discharged the joint administrators upon the grant of probate.
The court was required to determine whether the later wills were validly executed and whether they should be admitted to probate. This involved assessing the circumstances surrounding the execution of the wills, the incongruities between the provisions of the 1999 will and the later wills, and the potential undue influence exerted by the financial advisor over the deceased. The court also needed to consider the renunciations and disclaimers by the co-executor and the residuary beneficiary under the later wills, as well as the possibility of a secret trust arrangement.
The court concluded that the later wills were not validly executed and should not be admitted to probate. It found that the circumstances surrounding the execution of the later wills were suspicious, including the significant changes in the testamentary provisions and the deceased's later development of dementia. The court held that the financial advisor had exerted undue influence over the deceased, resulting in the execution of the later wills. Additionally, the court found that the renunciations and disclaimers were valid, and that there was no evidence of a secret trust arrangement. Consequently, the court ordered that the 1999 will be admitted to probate in solemn form and discharged the joint administrators upon the grant of probate.
Orders
Orders of the court
Order for probate in solemn form of will dated 29 March 1999
Order discharging joint administrators upon grant of probate issuing
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.