Estate Yee

In Estate Yee, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia examined the validity and effect of a layman’s will which was drafted following a professionally prepared will. The dispute arose between the deceased’s niece and her husband, who were the primary beneficiaries under the professional will, and the deceased’s son, who claimed to be entitled to a larger share under the layman’s will. The central issue was whether the layman’s will was intended to revoke the professional will or to operate as a codicil to it.

The court considered the testator’s intention in drafting the layman’s will, given that it contained a revocation clause. It was necessary to determine whether this clause effectively revoked the prior professional will or whether the layman’s will was intended to be supplementary. The court examined the language used in both wills and the circumstances surrounding their execution. The court found that the layman’s will was intended to operate as a codicil to the professional will, rather than a revocation of it, thereby giving effect to the testator’s true intention.

The Full Court held that the layman’s will did not revoke the professional will, but instead acted as a codicil to it. The court emphasised that the testator’s intention was to modify certain aspects of the professional will, particularly in favour of the son. The court applied principles of construction to ascertain that the layman’s will was intended to supplement, rather than replace, the professional will. Consequently, the son was entitled to the benefits outlined in the layman’s will as intended by the testator.

The court ordered that probate be granted to the son based on the interpretation of the layman’s will as a codicil, allowing him to inherit according to the terms specified in both the layman’s will and the professional will as modified by the codicil.