Horn v Rafferty

In the case of Horn v Rafferty, the court was asked to consider a caveat lodged against the grant of probate in the estate of Joan Sinclair Horn, deceased. The caveat was lodged by the deceased's former husband, James Rafferty. The issue before the court was whether the caveator had an interest in the estate or a reasonable prospect of establishing an interest, and whether the evidence did not raise a doubt as to whether the grant of probate should be made. The crux of the dispute was the resumption of cohabitation between the deceased and the caveator after their divorce, and the possibility of undue influence in the execution of mutual wills.

The court considered the nature of the relationship between the deceased and the caveator, and the circumstances surrounding the execution of the mutual wills. It was noted that the resumption of cohabitation after a divorce could raise suspicions of undue influence, but the court found that there was no evidence to suggest that the wills were not the true expression of the deceased's wishes. The court also considered the evidence of the deceased's family members, who attested that she had made the wills of her own volition, and that there was no suggestion of undue influence. The court found that the evidence did not raise a doubt as to whether the grant of probate should be made, and that the caveat should be removed.

The court ordered that the caveat lodged against the grant of probate in the estate of Joan Sinclair Horn, deceased, be removed. The court found that the caveator did not have an interest in the estate or a reasonable prospect of establishing an interest, and that the evidence did not raise a doubt as to whether the grant of probate should be made. The court also noted that the resumption of cohabitation after a divorce did not necessarily suggest undue influence in the execution of mutual wills. The court's decision was based on the evidence presented, and the lack of any suggestion of undue influence in the execution of the wills.