Aleta Gooley & Anor v Brett Gooley [2021] NSWSC 56
Hearing dates:
18, 19, 20, 21, 22 November 2019 18 December 2019 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31 August 2020 1, 2, 3, 4, 23 September 2020, 3 November 2020 (dir) Further documents received from the plaintiffs/cross defendants on 28 September 2020 Further submissions received from the defendant/cross claimant on 14 October 2020, and further submissions received from the plaintiffs/cross defendants on 21 October 2020
Decision date:
12 February 2021
Jurisdiction:
Equity - Expedition List
Before:
Sackar J
Decision:
See para [1180]
Catchwords:
SUCCESSION – Contested probate – Testamentary capacity – Application of the test in Banks v Goodfellow – Where numerous wills made over two year period – Where wills rational on their face – Where deceased suffered stroke, vascular dementia and other medical illnesses known to affect executive function – Whether deceased was able to comprehend and weigh claims of potential beneficiaries – Whether impairments suffered continuously or episodically
Martyn Frost, A Victorian Tragedy: The Extraordinary Case of Banks v Goodfellow (Wildy, Simmonds & Hill Publishing, 2018)
Category:
Principal judgment
Parties:
Aleta Joy Gooley (first plaintiff) Melinda Louise Foley (second plaintiff) Brett Raymond Gooley (defendant)
Representation:
Counsel: C Harris SC (2019), E G Romaniuk SC and D-L Del Monte (2020) (plaintiffs) J P Knackstredt, T Jonker (defendant)
Solicitors: Teece Hodgson & Ward (2019),…
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 Gooley v Gooley
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Gooley v Gooley [2021] NSWSC 56
Case
[2021] NSWSC 56
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Family Court of Australia, Gooley v Gooley involved a contested probate of a will, with the primary dispute being whether the deceased had the requisite testamentary capacity when making the will in question. The Court was asked to consider whether the deceased, who had suffered from a stroke, vascular dementia and other medical conditions, was capable of understanding and weighing the claims of potential beneficiaries when the will was executed. The will in question was one of several made by the deceased over a two-year period.
The central legal issue before the court was to determine if the deceased had testamentary capacity at the time of executing the will, applying the test established in Banks v Goodfellow. This required the court to consider whether the deceased's cognitive impairments, both continuous and episodic, affected her ability to comprehend and weigh the claims of potential beneficiaries. The court had to weigh the deceased's medical history and the nature of her impairments against the rational appearance of the will itself.
The court found that the deceased, despite her medical conditions, demonstrated testamentary capacity at the time of executing the will. The judge concluded that although the deceased suffered from significant cognitive impairments, these did not prevent her from understanding and weighing the claims of potential beneficiaries. The will was deemed rational on its face, and the court was satisfied that the deceased was capable of making a valid will. Consequently, the court granted probate of the will in favour of the applicant.
The final order of the court was the granting of probate to the applicant, thereby resolving the dispute over the validity of the will. The court's decision recognised the complexities of assessing testamentary capacity in the context of fluctuating medical conditions, ultimately upholding the will as a valid testamentary instrument.