Dellios v Dellios

In the case of Dellios v Dellios, the court was tasked with determining the validity of a will in light of the deceased's mental health history and the process by which the will was created. The deceased, who suffered from schizophrenia, made a will leaving the majority of her estate to her daughter. The deceased's son contested the will, asserting that his mother lacked the testamentary capacity to make it. The court was required to decide whether the deceased understood the nature of the act of making a will and its effects, as well as whether the process by which the will was created was appropriate and adhered to proper legal standards.

The court first examined the deceased's testamentary capacity. It noted the deceased's history of mental illness and her failure to comprehend and appreciate the claims to which she ought to give effect. The court emphasised that the onus remains with the person propounding the will to establish the deceased had testamentary capacity, and found that this onus had not been discharged. The court also considered the process by which the will was created, noting that the will was prepared prior to obtaining instructions from the deceased and that the instructions were provided by the beneficiary of the will. Additionally, the solicitor had asked leading questions to the deceased, which were translated to Macedonian by family members, raising concerns about the accuracy of the communication. The court found this process to be unsatisfactory and concluded that it was undesirable that confirmation of will instructions be obtained in the presence of family members.

Based on the findings regarding the deceased's lack of testamentary capacity and the unsatisfactory process by which the will was created, the court declared the will invalid. The court also considered the fitness of the plaintiff to be appointed as administrator of the deceased's estate, given the majority of those entitled on intestacy sought the appointment of the defendant. The court ultimately determined that the plaintiff would be a fit and proper person to be appointed as administrator. The court issued letters of administration to the plaintiff, with the caveat that any costs associated with the administration of the estate were to be borne by the parties equally.