Linkenbagh v Turner

The case of Linkenbagh v Turner involved the applicant, Linkenbagh, who sought to have an annotated copy of a will admitted to probate, while the respondents, Turner and another, contested this application. The deceased, Brian Charles Hebblewhite, had executed a will on 10 January 2013, which included bequests to the Young Animal Protection Society, the applicant, and another individual, with the residue of his estate also designated to the applicant and the first respondent. After the testator's death, Linkenbagh discovered an annotated copy of the executed will which altered specific bequests and potentially diminished the residue for the applicant and the second respondent.

The court was required to determine whether the annotated copy of the executed will represented the deceased's testamentary intention and whether the annotations were intended to constitute a new will. The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld) and the principles governing the execution and effect of wills, particularly focusing on the distinction between alterations to an executed will and the creation of a new testamentary document.

The court concluded that the annotated copy did not embody the deceased's testamentary intention. The annotations were considered to be amendments or revisions, rather than an intention to create a new will. The court held that the annotations did not constitute a valid execution of a new will and that the original will executed on 10 January 2013 should be admitted to probate. The court refused the application to admit the annotated copy of the will to probate and ordered that the original will be admitted to probate in solemn form, subject to the formal requirements of the Registrar. The court also directed that the costs of the application be paid by the estate on the indemnity basis, unless the parties agreed otherwise.