In the Matter of Martina Pieternella De Jager
Case
•
[2012] SASC 236
•21 December 2012
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
In the Matter of Martina Pieternella De Jager [2012] SASC 236
[2012] SASC 236
21 December 2012
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the court was an application for an order authorizing the making of a will on behalf of Martina Pieternella De Jager, who suffers from multiple sclerosis and is unable to communicate. The will in question was executed by Ms De Jager on 10 June 2005, and her relationship with her former partner, Jodie Ann Bonney, has since ended. The primary legal issues before the court were whether Ms De Jager lacked testamentary capacity, whether the proposed will would accurately reflect her likely intentions if she had testamentary capacity, and whether it was reasonable in all circumstances to make an order authorizing the will on her behalf.
The court considered the evidence presented, including expert opinions on Ms De Jager's mental capacity, and the terms of the proposed will. The court was satisfied that Ms De Jager lacked testamentary capacity and that the proposed will would accurately reflect her likely intentions if she had capacity. Furthermore, the court found it reasonable to make an order authorizing the will on her behalf.
As a result, the court granted the application and made an order authorizing the making of a will on behalf of Martina Pieternella De Jager. The will was signed by the Registrar of Probates and sealed with the seal of the court. The will was to be retained by the Registrar of Probates and could only be withdrawn from deposit with the Registrar by order of the court. The costs of the application and order were to be paid from the estate of the proposed testator. The parties were allowed to apply for further orders and directions as needed.
In summary, the court found that it was appropriate to authorize the making of a will on behalf of Martina Pieternella De Jager, who lacks testamentary capacity due to her multiple sclerosis. The proposed will, which was agreed upon by various parties, was found to accurately reflect her likely intentions, and it was reasonable in all circumstances to make an order authorizing the will on her behalf.
The court considered the evidence presented, including expert opinions on Ms De Jager's mental capacity, and the terms of the proposed will. The court was satisfied that Ms De Jager lacked testamentary capacity and that the proposed will would accurately reflect her likely intentions if she had capacity. Furthermore, the court found it reasonable to make an order authorizing the will on her behalf.
As a result, the court granted the application and made an order authorizing the making of a will on behalf of Martina Pieternella De Jager. The will was signed by the Registrar of Probates and sealed with the seal of the court. The will was to be retained by the Registrar of Probates and could only be withdrawn from deposit with the Registrar by order of the court. The costs of the application and order were to be paid from the estate of the proposed testator. The parties were allowed to apply for further orders and directions as needed.
In summary, the court found that it was appropriate to authorize the making of a will on behalf of Martina Pieternella De Jager, who lacks testamentary capacity due to her multiple sclerosis. The proposed will, which was agreed upon by various parties, was found to accurately reflect her likely intentions, and it was reasonable in all circumstances to make an order authorizing the will on her behalf.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Succession Law
Legal Concepts
-
Making of a Will
-
Testamentary Capacity
-
Statutory Wills
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Re W, DJ [2015] SASC 45
Cases Citing This Decision
6
In the Matter of G, CL
[2015] SASC 80
Re W, DJ
[2015] SASC 45
In the Matter of Linley Joy Dennis
[2014] SASC 158
Cases Cited
11
Statutory Material Cited
1
Griffin v Boardman
[2009] SASC 315
Public Trustee v Phillips No. Scciv-03-800
[2004] SASC 142
Hoffmann v Waters
[2007] SASC 273