JUDGE:	VICKERY J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	27-31 OCTOBER; 3-7, 10-14, 17-21, 24-27 NOVEMBER; 1-5, 9, 12, 15 & 17 DECEMBER 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 FEBRUARY 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	JULIE ANN NICHOLSON & ORS v TIMOTHY PETER KNAGGS & ORS
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 64

---

Will – Lack of testamentary capacity – Elderly person with disabilities - Undue influence – Circumstantial evidence – Standard of proof – Boyse v Rossborough (1857) 6 HL Cas 1 and Craig v Lamoureux [1920] AC 349 not followed – Conduct amounting to coercion – Severance of offending clause - Failure to have knowledge of or approve contents of will

Evidence – Destruction of documents – Inferences to be drawn – Circumstantial Evidence in a civil case

International Law - Role in development of the common law – Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006 [2008] ATS 12 – Use of travaux préparatoires - Construction of Article 12

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Plaintiffs

Mr R Kendall QC and
Mr A Phillips

Hicks Oakley Chessell Williams

For the Defendants

Mr R Berglund QC,

Mr N Jones and

Mr A Verspaandonk

Hunt McCullough Kollias & Co

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1

The Litigation................................................................................................................................. 1

Ageing, Vulnerability and Testamentary Capacity................................................................. 3

The CRPD – Disability and Human Rights............................................................................... 3

Testamentary Freedom: The Common Law and Human Rights........................................... 5

Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities........................................................................ 6

Caregivers and Wills.................................................................................................................... 6

Function of the Law of Undue Influence................................................................................... 7

PROCEDURAL AND EVIDENTIARY MATTERS..................................................................... 8

Electronic Rulings......................................................................................................................... 8

Admissibility of Statements of the Testatrix........................................................................... 10

Expert Medical Evidence........................................................................................................... 11

Circumstantial Evidence............................................................................................................ 12

THE WILLS AND CODICILS....................................................................................................... 13

LEGAL PRINCIPLES...................................................................................................................... 16

Article 12 Disability Convention (CRPD)................................................................................ 16

Application for Revocation – the Threshold Question.......................................................... 22

Burden of Proof - Testamentary Capacity.............................................................................. 23

Standard of Proof – Testamentary Capacity........................................................................... 25

Testamentary Capacity............................................................................................................... 26

Undue Influence.......................................................................................................................... 29

Undue Influence – Onus of Proof............................................................................................. 30

Undue Influence – Standard of Proof...................................................................................... 31

“Act of Coercion” and Undue Influence?................................................................................ 39

Knowledge and Approval of Contents of a Will.................................................................... 44

BETTY DYKE.................................................................................................................................... 46

PERSONS REFERRED TO IN THE WILLS............................................................................... 48

The Neighbours........................................................................................................................... 48

The Knaggs - Destruction of Diaries by Denise Knaggs and Credit Issues....................... 48

Denise Knaggs......................................................................................................................... 48
False Declaration..................................................................................................................... 49
Destruction of Diaries.............................................................................................................. 50
False Denial of Handwriting................................................................................................... 56
Trial Affidavit Not the ‘Whole Truth’ Concerning Betty Dyke’s Mental Condition............. 56
Tim Knaggs.............................................................................................................................. 57

The Allen Family and Gary and Diane Smith......................................................................... 60

Robert Allen, Norman Allen, Sandra Allen, and Steven Allen.............................................. 60
Gary and Diane Smith............................................................................................................. 62

Betty Dyke’s Relatives................................................................................................................ 63

Enid Nicholson and Julie Nicholson........................................................................................ 63
Geoffrey Edwards and Douglas Edwards................................................................................ 64
Berniece Parfitt, Wendy Parfitt, Maida Pitchford and Jane Leach........................................ 65

Betty Dyke’s Other…

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 Nicholson v Knaggs

Details

AGLC: Nicholson v Knaggs [2009] VSC 64
Case: [2009] VSC 64
Decision Date: 27 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nicholson v Knaggs involved a dispute over the validity of a will made by an elderly man with disabilities. The deceased had made a will leaving his entire estate to his niece, Mary Knaggs. The deceased's son, the plaintiff, sought to have the will declared invalid on the grounds that his father lacked testamentary capacity and that the will had been procured by undue influence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues were whether the deceased had testamentary capacity to execute the will and whether the will had been procured by undue influence. In considering testamentary capacity, the court had to assess whether the deceased understood the nature and effect of making a will and the extent of the property he was disposing of. Regarding undue influence, the court needed to determine whether there was any improper conduct that amounted to coercion and whether the niece had acted in a way that overcame the deceased's free will.

The court found that the deceased had testamentary capacity, noting his clear understanding of his estate and the property he was disposing of, despite his disabilities. It was held that the niece did not exercise undue influence, as there was no conduct amounting to coercion. The court rejected the proposition that the niece's conduct in procuring the will was inherently suspicious merely because she was a beneficiary. The court also held that the will should not be entirely invalidated, and instead severed the offending clause that left the entire estate to the niece. This was in line with the principle in Boyse v Rossborough and Craig v Lamoureux, which were distinguished on their facts. The court held that the deceased's failure to have knowledge of or approve the contents of the will did not invalidate the entire document.

The final orders of the court were that the will was valid except for the clause leaving the entire estate to the niece, which was severed. The court ordered that the estate be distributed according to the remaining valid provisions of the will.

Orders