Legal Research
Cases
Johnson v Staniforth

Johnson v Staniforth

Case [2002] WASCA 97 24 April 2002

Testamentary Capacity

Costs

Admissibility of Evidence

Succession Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION

SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA)

CITATION

JOHNSON -v- STANIFORTH & ORS
[2002] WASCA 97

CORAM

: MURRAY J

SCOTT J
ROBERTS-SMITH J

HEARD

: 14 MARCH 2002

DELIVERED

: 24 APRIL 2002

FILE NO/S

:	FUL 9 of 2002

MATTER

:	In the Estate of MICHAEL VRANJICAN (DEC)

BETWEEN

: DONALD EDWIN JOHNSON

Appellant (Plaintiff)
AND
WINNIE KATIE STANIFORTH
First Respondent (First Defendant)
WINNIE KATIE STANIFORTH
FIONA LISA STANIFORTH
Second Respondents (Second Defendants)
WINNIE KATIE STANIFORTH
Third Respondent (Third Defendant)

[2002] WASCA 97

Catchwords:

Wills, Probate and Letters of Administration - Making of will - Testator subject to administration order under Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) - Will made without authority of the administrator or consent of the Board - Whether invalid on that account

Mental health - Unsoundness of mind in relation to civil rights and duties - Effect upon testamentary capacity - Testator a represented person - Will made while administration order in force - No authority of administrator nor consent of Guardianship and Administration Board - Whether "disposition" in s 77(1) Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) includes a will

Costs - Probate action - Trial of preliminary issue - Principles

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 45, s 64, s 69, s 71, s 77, s 82

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant (Plaintiff)	:	Mr K E Yin
First Respondent (First Defendant)	:	Dr A F Dickey QC
Second Respondents (Second Defendants):	Dr A F Dickey QC
Third Respondent (Third Defendant)	:	Dr A F Dickey QC

Solicitors:

Appellant (Plaintiff)	:	Frichot & Frichot
First Respondent (First Defendant)	:	Halperin Fleming Meertens
Second Respondents (Second Defendants):	Halperin Fleming Meertens
Third Respondent (Third Defendant)	:	Halperin Fleming Meertens

[2002] WASCA 97

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Brown v McEnroe (1890) 11 LR (NSW) Eq 134
Cameron v Cameron (1968) 12 FLR 22
Carnley v Hoff [1942] 1 Ch 298
Carter v Carter (1896) 1 Ch 62
Clay v Karlson & Anor [2001] WASC 141

David by her Tutor the Protective Commissioner v David (1993)

30 NSWLR 417

Duke of Northumberland & Anor v Attorney-General [1905] AC 406
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Henderson (1943) 68 CLR 29
Gibbons v Wright (1954) 91 CLR 423

Imperial Chemical Industries of Australia and New Zealand Limited v The

Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1972) 46 ALJR 35
In the Marriage of B J and T A Bassola (1985) 10 Fam LR 413
JNRD and the Protected Estates Act (1992) 28 NSWLR 728
Johnson v Staniforth & Ors [2002] WASCA 23
Johnson v Staniforth [2001] WASC 331
Lennon v Gibson & Howes Limited [1919] AC 709
Mitchell v Gard (1863) 3 SW & TR 275; 164 ER 1200
Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v Fairlie-Cunninghame (1993) 32 NSWLR 377
Powell v Clelland [1948] 1 KB 262
Ramaciotti v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1920) 29 CLR 49
Re Green [1969] WAR 67
Re Herbert (1990)…

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 Johnson v Staniforth

Details

AGLC: Johnson v Staniforth [2002] WASCA 97
Case: [2002] WASCA 97
Decision Date: 24 APRIL 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Johnson v Staniforth, the parties involved were Johnson, the administrator of the estate of the deceased, and Staniforth, who challenged the validity of a will made by the deceased. The deceased had been subject to an administration order under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) at the time of making the will. The dispute centred on whether the will was validly made, given that it was executed without the authority of the administrator or the consent of the Guardianship and Administration Board. The legal issues before the court were whether the will was invalid due to the lack of authority or consent and the impact of the deceased's mental health on testamentary capacity.

The court considered the statutory provisions under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) and determined that the will was indeed a "disposition" within the meaning of section 77(1) of the Act. The court held that the will was invalid because it was made without the requisite authority of the administrator or consent from the Board. The court also examined the deceased's mental health, concluding that unsoundness of mind in relation to civil rights and duties did not necessarily negate testamentary capacity, but in this case, the will was still invalid due to the statutory requirement of authority or consent. The court emphasised that the will was executed while the administration order was in force, and there was no evidence of the deceased's mental state at the time of making the will being sufficient to demonstrate testamentary capacity.

The court ruled that the will was invalid and ordered that the estate be distributed according to the intestacy rules. Additionally, the court determined that the costs of the trial of the preliminary issue were to be paid by the party who brought the challenge to the will. This decision highlights the importance of strict compliance with statutory requirements when dealing with the estates of individuals under administration orders.

Orders