Hamilton v Nelson

The case of Hamilton v Nelson involved the interpretation of a last will and testament executed by the deceased on 22 October 1981. The plaintiffs sought an order to propound the last will and testament, alleging that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity at the time of making the will, and consequently, the will should be declared invalid. The plaintiffs argued that, as no other valid will could be found, the estate should be administered on the basis of an intestacy. Prior to the trial, the parties entered into a deed of settlement, which was subsequently varied. The plaintiffs also sought an order to omit certain words from clause 3 of the will, claiming that they were offensive and libellous.

The court had to decide whether the deceased had testamentary capacity at the time of making her last will, whether the offensive words in clause 3 should be removed, and whether the deed of settlement, as varied, should be made a rule of court. The court concluded that the deceased had testamentary capacity at the time of making her last will, and the offensive words in clause 3 were not excised from the will. The court also declined to make the deed of settlement as varied a rule of court.

In reaching its decision, the court considered that the removal of the words in question would have no impact on the agreed division of the estate. The court further noted that the proceedings had already received public attention and that it was not appropriate to exercise its discretion to exclude the impugned words from the deceased’s will. The court granted administration with the will and codicil annexed in favour of the plaintiffs and Shauna Roche, directing the plaintiffs to prepare and submit minutes of order in accordance with the reasons provided.

The court’s decision was a balanced approach, taking into account the deceased’s testamentary capacity, the impact of the offensive words on the agreed division of the estate, and the public attention the proceedings had already received. The court's final orders granted administration with the will and codicil annexed in favour of the plaintiffs and Shauna Roche.