Legal Research
Cases
Monger v Taylor

Monger v Taylor

Case [2000] VSC 304 2 August 2000

Division 2 of Part 3 of Wills Act 1997

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION	Not Restricted

No. 7023 of 1999

DESMOND LAWRENCE MONGER	Plaintiff
v
BONNIE MARY LINDSAY TAYLOR	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Gillard J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 and 31 July 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 August 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Monger v Taylor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 304

---

Statutory will – Division 2 of Part 3 of Wills Act 1997 – court approving will – principles to apply – leave granted – will approved.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr V. Ruta	B.T.E. Flynn Murone & Co
For the Defendant	Mrs K. Rees	Ryan Carlisle Thomas

HIS HONOUR:

This is the return of an originating motion seeking an order that the plaintiff have leave of the court to make an application pursuant to Division 2 Part 3 of the Wills Act 1997 for an order authorising a will to be made in terms approved by the court and if leave be granted, an order that the will be approved.

It is alleged that Mrs Letitia Anwyn Power ("Mrs Power") lacks testamentary capacity to make a will and an order is sought authorising a will to be made on her behalf.

Parties

The plaintiff, Desmond Lawrence Monger, resides in Strathmore, is a shop proprietor and Mrs Power's nephew by marriage.

The defendant, Mrs Bonnie Mary Lindsay Taylor ("Mrs Taylor") is Mrs Power's sister. If Mrs Taylor survived Mrs Power and the latter left no will, by reason of the intestacy, Mrs Taylor would receive the whole of the estate.

Procedure adopted

The court's jurisdiction to authorise the making of a will (called a "statutory will") in specific terms on behalf of the person lacking testamentary capacity is found in Division 2 of Part 3 of the Wills Act 1997 ("the Act"). Division 2 came into operation on 20 July 1998.

Rules of Court have been made concerning applications and are found in Order 17 of Chapter 2. By reason of Rule 17.05(1) an application for leave to make an application for an order under Division 2 is to be made by originating motion supported by affidavit.

In the present proceeding Mr Monger through his solicitors issued an originating motion on 28 September 1999 which was returnable before the judge in the Practice Court on 14 October 1999.

The motion sought orders that he be granted leave to make the application for an order authorising a will to be made for Mrs Power and an order to that effect in accordance with the terms of a proposed will annexed to the affidavit of Mr Monger. The effect of the proposed will was that the total estate was to go to Mr Monger and his wife, Beverley Anne Monger.

Mr Monger's solicitor, Mr Frank Murone, carried out investigations to determine the next of kin of Mrs Power and eventually located the address of Mrs Taylor the sister of Mrs Power. He made contact with her and as a result…

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 Monger v Taylor

Details

AGLC: Monger v Taylor [2000] VSC 304
Case: [2000] VSC 304
Decision Date: 2 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Monger v Taylor, the dispute involved the validity of a statutory will executed under Division 2 of Part 3 of the Wills Act 1997. The court was required to determine whether the statutory will complied with the legal requirements and whether it should be approved. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issues before the court were whether the statutory will complied with the statutory requirements and whether it should be approved based on the principles applicable to such wills. The court examined whether the deceased had the necessary testamentary capacity, if the will was properly executed, and whether it was made under undue influence.

The court analysed the statutory framework and the principles developed in previous cases concerning statutory wills. It considered the deceased's testamentary capacity, the formalities of the will's execution, and the absence of any undue influence. The court found that the statutory will met the legislative requirements and adhered to the principles set out in prior jurisprudence. The deceased had demonstrated testamentary capacity, the will was properly executed, and there was no evidence of undue influence. Consequently, the court granted leave and approved the will, finding it to be valid and in compliance with the statutory provisions. The court's decision was grounded in the legal framework provided by the Wills Act 1997 and the established case law on statutory wills.

The final orders of the court were that the statutory will was approved, and the estate was to be distributed according to the terms of the will. The court's ruling confirmed the validity of the statutory will and provided clarity regarding the applicable principles. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and judicial principles when dealing with statutory wills in Queensland.

Orders