SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Harrison v Petersen [2000] QSC 415 PARTIES: WANDA HARRISON
(plaintiff)
v
DELMA PETERSEN
(defendant)FILE NO: 9669 of 1998 DIVISION: Trial Division DELIVERED ON: 21 November 2000 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 23-24 August 2000 JUDGE: Mullins J ORDER: The action be dismissed.
CATCHWORDS: WILLS, PROBATE AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION – MAKING A WILL – whether deceased had capacity when giving instructions or at the execution of the will –whether deceased knew and approved of the contents of the will – whether there was a testamentary act – whether testator had capacity to comprehend and appreciate the claims on his estate.
Astridge v Pepper [1970] 1 NSWR 542
Bailey v Bailey (1924) 34 CLR 558
Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5QB 549
Nock v Austin (1918) 25 CLR 519
Parker v Felgate (1883) 8PD 171
Perera v Perera [1901] AC 354
Tyrell v Painton [1894] P151COUNSEL: G M Egan for the plaintiff
S J English for the defendantSOLICITORS: Bolster & Co for the plaintiff
Skuse & Co for the defendant
MULLINS J: Mrs Wanda Harrison brings this action as plaintiff asking the court to pronounce for the validity of a will of Cyril Oscar Madden ("Mr Madden") bearing date 21 January 1997. Mr Madden died on 5 June 1997 when he was almost 87 years old, having been born on 15 June 1910. His estate comprised assets having a total value of approximately $80,000. He was survived by his daughter Mrs Delma Petersen who is the defendant in this action and who is the only child of Mr Madden and his wife Eunice Madden ("Mrs Madden").
Mr and Mrs Madden's last home together was at Tyalgum in northern New South Wales. The plaintiff lives at Eungella which is about 11 kilometres from where Mr and Mrs Madden lived. Mr and Mrs Madden were aware that the plaintiff did volunteer work at Murwillumbah District Hospital through a group known as "Pink Ladies". They had some brief acquaintance with the plaintiff when they approached her in 1991 to come and assist them in their home one day each week. Mrs Madden offered to pay the plaintiff $7 for the day's work. The plaintiff agreed to the arrangement and undertook activities such as ironing, dusting, vacuuming and food preparation.
The frequency with which the plaintiff visited Mr and Mrs Madden to provide assistance increased over time. Mrs Madden had a sight problem and eventually the plaintiff took over cooking in their home. Eventually, they depended on her to take them to doctors' appointments. A routine developed where the plaintiff would take Mr and Mrs Madden to Murwillumbah to shop once each week. The plaintiff used Mr and Mrs Madden's vehicle for these trips.
In May 1996 Mrs Madden was admitted to the Nerang Nursing Home. Mr Madden was distressed at his separation from his wife. The defendant considered that Mr Madden blamed her for being separated from his wife, as the defendant was involved in…
Continue reading Harrison v Petersen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Harrison v Petersen [2000] QSC 415
- Case
- [2000] QSC 415
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the evidence regarding Mr. Petersen's mental state at the time of giving instructions for and executing the will. Medical evidence and witness testimonies were assessed to determine if Mr. Petersen had the necessary understanding of the nature and effect of making a will. The court considered the legal standards required for testamentary capacity, including the ability to comprehend and appreciate the claims on the estate and the consequences of disposing of the estate as instructed. The court found that Mr. Petersen had the requisite capacity and understanding at the time of executing the will, and that there was a testamentary act.
Consequently, the court concluded that Mr. Petersen's will was valid, and dismissed the plaintiff's action. The action was dismissed on the basis that there was no evidence to support the claim that Mr. Petersen lacked the mental capacity to execute the will or to know and approve its contents. The court upheld the validity of the will as executed, finding no grounds to invalidate it.
Orders
Orders of the court
The action be dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.