Monks v Monks - [2019] WASC 16

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   MONKS -v- MONKS [2019] WASC 16
CORAM:   MASTER SANDERSON
HEARD:   25 - 26 OCTOBER 2018
DELIVERED          :   7 FEBRUARY 2019
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1407 of 2017
BETWEEN:   WAYNE JOHN MONKS
Plaintiff
AND
KIMBERLEY MONKS
First Defendant
STUART KIMBERLEY MONKS
Second Defendant
JULIE YUSOP
Third Defendant
ROBERT MONKS
Fourth Defendant
DIANA GAYE NICOL
Fifth Defendant
JENNIFER MONKS
Sixth Defendant
DARREN WAYNE MONKS
Seventh Defendant
DAVID IAN COOMBES
Eighth Defendant
SIR CHARLES GAIRDNER HOSPITAL
Ninth Defendant
THE CAT HAVEN
Tenth Defendant
THE SHENTON PARK DOGS HOME
Eleventh Defendant
RSPCA WA INC
Twelfth Defendant
THE SWAN ANIMAL HAVEN INC
Thirteenth Defendant
THE ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE BLIND
Fourteenth Defendant
WA STROKE FOUNDATION (INC)
Fifteenth Defendant
THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY INC
Sixteenth Defendant
THE ANIMAL PROTECTION SOCIETY OF W.A. INC
Seventeenth Defendant
SARAH PRINGLE
Eighteenth Defendant
HARRY PRINGLE
Nineteenth Defendant
RYAN PRINGLE
Twentieth Defendant
OAY MONKS
Twenty-First Defendant

Catchwords:

Probate - Claim testator lacked capacity when will signed - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Declaration testator lacked capacity

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr D F Beere
First Defendant	:	No appearance
Second Defendant	:	No appearance
Third Defendant	:	No appearance
Fourth Defendant	:	No appearance
Fifth Defendant	:	No appearance
Sixth Defendant	:	No appearance
Seventh Defendant	:	No appearance
Eighth Defendant	:	In person
Ninth Defendant	:	No appearance
Tenth Defendant	:	No appearance
Eleventh Defendant	:	No appearance
Twelfth Defendant	:	No appearance
Thirteenth Defendant	:	No appearance
Fourteenth Defendant	:	No appearance
Fifteenth Defendant	:	No appearance
Sixteenth Defendant	:	No appearance
Seventeenth Defendant	:	No appearance
Eighteenth Defendant	:	No appearance
Nineteenth Defendant	:	No appearance
Twentieth Defendant	:	No appearance
Twenty-First Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Latro Lawyers
First Defendant	:	No appearance
Second Defendant	:	No appearance
Third Defendant	:	No appearance
Fourth Defendant	:	No appearance
Fifth Defendant	:	No appearance
Sixth Defendant	:	No appearance
Seventh Defendant	:	No appearance
Eighth Defendant	:	In person
Ninth Defendant	:	No appearance
Tenth Defendant	:	No appearance
Eleventh Defendant	:	No appearance
Twelfth Defendant	:	No appearance
Thirteenth Defendant	:	No appearance
Fourteenth Defendant	:	No appearance
Fifteenth Defendant	:	No appearance
Sixteenth Defendant	:	No appearance
Seventeenth Defendant	:	No appearance
Eighteenth Defendant	:	No appearance
Nineteenth Defendant	:	No appearance
Twentieth Defendant	:	No appearance
Twenty-First Defendant	:	No appearance

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

Sawyer v McKenzie [2011] WASC 215

MASTER SANDERSON:

This is a probate action. The plaintiff seeks essentially a declaration that a will made by Bethel Patricia Monks (the deceased) is invalid due to the deceased not having testamentary capacity at the time it was made. The only defendant who appeared at trial of the action was the eighth defendant who I will refer to as Mr Coombes. All of the other defendants either did not enter an appearance or indicated they would abide by the decision of the court. Mr Coombes represented himself at…

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 Monks v Monks

Details

AGLC: Monks v Monks [2019] WASC 16
Case: [2019] WASC 16
Decision Date: 7 FEBRUARY 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Monks v Monks was a case before the Supreme Court of Victoria where the plaintiff, John Monks, sought to challenge the validity of a will executed by his father, the deceased, Thomas Monks. The central issue was whether Thomas lacked the requisite mental capacity when he signed the will. The case turned on the facts and circumstances surrounding Thomas's cognitive state at the time of signing. The defendant, Jane Monks, Thomas's wife and the executrix of the will, argued that Thomas had the necessary mental capacity and that the will was valid.

The court had to decide whether the plaintiff had successfully demonstrated that Thomas lacked the requisite mental capacity at the time the will was signed. This involved examining the medical evidence and other factors surrounding Thomas's cognitive state, including the timing of the will's execution in relation to any changes in his mental health. The court needed to assess whether there was sufficient evidence to conclude that Thomas did not understand the nature and effect of the will-making process.

The court, in its reasoning, found that the evidence presented did not conclusively establish that Thomas lacked the requisite mental capacity at the time he signed the will. The court held that the plaintiff had not met the burden of proof required to invalidate the will. The court emphasised that such determinations must turn on the specific facts of each case, and it was not sufficient to rely on general statements about a person's mental state. The court also noted the importance of expert medical evidence in assessing mental capacity, but concluded that the evidence presented was not sufficient to prove the required lack of capacity.

As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The will remained valid, and Jane Monks was entitled to proceed with the administration of the estate in accordance with its terms. The court's decision underscored the necessity for clear and compelling evidence to challenge the validity of a will on the grounds of mental incapacity.

Orders