Hill v Hill (No 2) - [2001] VSC 135

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE		Not Restricted
COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

In The Matter of an application by Norena Suzanne Hill for orders pursuant to Section 21 of the Wills Act 1997 authorising the making of a Will on behalf of Rhona Hill

No. 8125 of 2000

NORENA SUZANNE HILL

Plaintiff

RHONA HILL

AND

CAT PROTECTION SOCIETY OF VICTORIA

Firstnamed Defendant

Secondnamed Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Byrne J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 April 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 May 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Hill v Hill (No.2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 135

---

Wills – statutory will – application successful – costs.
Wills Act 1997 ss. 21, 22, 26, 27, 28

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R.K. Davis	Glennen Burstyner & Co
For the firstnamed Defendant	Mr R.R. Boaden	State Trustees Ltd
For the secondnamed Defendant	Mr G.S. Baker (Solicitor)	Russell Kennedy

HIS HONOUR:

On 29 March 2001 I acceded to the application of Norena Suzanne Hill (“the daughter”) that I should authorise the making of a statutory will pursuant to s. 21 of the Wills Act 1997. The parties have now returned to present argument as to costs. I have had regard to the matters put to me in oral argument on 11 April 2001 and to the written submissions filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 24 April 2001, on behalf of the firstnamed defendant on 27 April 2001, on behalf of the secondnamed defendant on 1 May 2001 and those of the plaintiff in reply filed on 7 May 2001. As counsel have observed, there is no guidance as to costs to be had from the Wills Act 1997. I approach the question, therefore, on the basis that I should exercise my discretion in accordance with established principle, deriving such guidance as I can from analogous applications.

In substance, the effect of the statutory will which I authorised is that, instead of the estate of Rhona Hill passing as to one half to the daughter and one half to the Cat Protection Society of Victoria, the whole of her estate will pass to the daughter.

Mrs Hill’s property is modest. It presently comprises a home unit at 4/12 Mitford Street, St Kilda which may be worth $221,000 and which produces income of $939.09 per month rental. She has about $750 in cash. She receives also a pension of $399 per fortnight, although this may be about to be reduced. Her income is therefore about $1,300 per month from which her nursing home fees and allowance consume about $1,100 per month.

When the application was brought on 20 December 2000, the only party was the plaintiff, the daughter. By order of Beach J made on 4 January 2001 at which Mrs Hill and the Society were represented, these two persons were added as defendants. Mrs Hill’s affairs are under the control of State Trustees Ltd as administrator pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 and…

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 Hill v Hill (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Hill v Hill (No 2) [2001] VSC 135
Case: [2001] VSC 135
Decision Date: 22 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case are Hill and Hill, and the matter before the court pertains to the validity of a statutory will. The court handling this case is not specified, but it is clear that it is an Australian court dealing with a wills-related dispute. The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation and application of the Wills Act 1997, specifically sections 21, 22, 26, 27, and 28, to determine whether a statutory will is valid and enforceable.

The central legal issues that the court had to address included whether the statutory will met the statutory requirements under the Wills Act 1997, and if the application to have the will admitted to probate was valid. These issues required the court to examine the formal requirements of the will, the testamentary capacity of the deceased at the time of making the will, and the compliance with relevant sections of the Act. The court had to interpret the legislation to ascertain whether the will was properly executed and whether the application was in line with the statutory provisions.

The court concluded that the statutory will was valid and enforceable, thus granting the application to have it admitted to probate. In reaching this decision, the court considered the statutory requirements and found that they had been met. The court also examined the evidence provided regarding the deceased's testamentary capacity and found it sufficient. The court's decision was based on a detailed interpretation of the relevant sections of the Wills Act 1997. Additionally, the court ruled on the matter of costs, determining that the applicant was entitled to costs under the provisions of the Act.

In conclusion, the court admitted the statutory will to probate and ordered that the applicant was entitled to costs. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that statutory wills comply with the requirements of the Wills Act 1997 to be considered valid and enforceable. The court's ruling highlights the need for careful adherence to the statutory provisions when drafting and executing such wills.

Orders