D'Unienville v Sakalo [No 2]

In the case of D'Unienville v Sakalo [No 2], the dispute before the court involved claims and counterclaims for the grant of representation in solemn form of the estate of Peter D'Unienville, who had died intestate. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the parties presented arguments concerning the validity of wills, both formal and informal, and the potential revocation of an informal will. The court was tasked with determining whether an informal will, allegedly created by telephone instructions to solicitors, could be considered valid and whether it had been effectively revoked.

The legal issues central to the case included the admissibility and proof of an alleged informal will, the conditions under which such a will could be deemed valid, and the circumstances under which an informal will might be revoked. The court had to assess whether the informal will was sufficiently documented and whether it met the legal standards for formality and intent. Furthermore, the court needed to determine whether the alleged informal will had been revoked by the cancellation of its contents and if such revocation was effective.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the evidence presented regarding the creation and revocation of the informal will. It found that the alleged informal will did not meet the necessary legal criteria for validity. Consequently, the court concluded that there was no valid will, formal or informal, and that the estate should be administered as intestate. The court also addressed the issue of the interim grant of letters of administration ad colligenda bona and ordered the revocation and delivery up of the earlier grant. Additionally, the court ordered the delivery of accounts and granted letters of administration to the appropriate party.