Bathurst CJ at [1]; Gleeson JA at [2]; White JA at [3]
Decision:
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Catchwords:
SUCCESSION — contested probate — testamentary capacity — application of test in Banks v Goodfellow — where will apparent rational on its face — where evidence of hallucinations or delusions — whether delusions or hallucinations affected the provisions of the will — whether deceased was able to comprehend and appreciate the claims to which deceased ought to have given effect
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the decision]
Mr Warwick Croft (“the deceased”) died on 4 January 2016 aged 85 leaving a will dated 11 October 2013 (“the 2013 will”). An appeal was brought by two of his six daughters (Leah and Esther Croft) against a decision of a judge of the Equity Division to grant probate of the 2013 will, of which the respondents, Anna and David Sanders, were named executors. By an earlier will, the deceased had left substantial assets to his all six of his daughters. By contrast, the 2013 will left only $40,000.00 to five of the six daughters, with Anna receiving the balance of the estate – worth approximately $3.0 million.
The appellants alleged that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity when he made the 2013 will. The asserted lack of capacity was said to arise, first, from alleged cognitive impairment (in the form of dementia) preventing him from weighing the respective claims of all his children to his estate, and secondly, from a pattern of delusions or hallucinations. Such delusions…
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 Croft v Sanders
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Croft v Sanders [2019] NSWCA 303
Case
[2019] NSWCA 303
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Croft v Sanders concerned a contested probate application heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The dispute centred on the testamentary capacity of the deceased at the time of executing their will.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the deceased possessed the requisite testamentary capacity, as defined by the principles in *Banks v Goodfellow*, to make a valid will. Specifically, the Court had to determine if any alleged hallucinations or delusions suffered by the deceased impacted their understanding and appreciation of the claims of potential beneficiaries when making the will, despite the will appearing rational on its face.
The Court applied the established test for testamentary capacity, which requires a testator to understand the nature of the act of making a will, to comprehend and appreciate the extent of the property to be disposed of, and to be able to understand and appreciate the claims of those who might expect to benefit from the will. The Court considered the evidence of the deceased's mental state, including any alleged delusions, and assessed whether these affected the disposition of their estate. The Court found that the evidence did not establish that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity.
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent.