Pillinger v Lees (No 2)

The Court heard an appeal by the appellants, the deceased's daughters, against the respondent, the deceased's son. The deceased left behind a substantial estate, including a house, and executed a will that left the house to the respondent. The appellants contested the will, claiming that the respondent had unduly influenced the deceased. The Family Provision Act 1982 (Qld) was invoked, and the appellants sought an order for reasonable financial provision to be made for them from the estate. The primary judge found that the deceased had made the will of their own volition and dismissed the appellants' claim. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The central legal issues were whether the deceased had been unduly influenced in making the will and, if so, whether the appellants were entitled to a greater share of the estate under the Family Provision Act. The Court of Appeal had to consider the evidence presented and determine if the deceased's will was a product of their own free will or if it was influenced by the respondent. The Court also needed to assess if the appellants' claim for reasonable financial provision was valid and, if so, whether the primary judge's order was appropriate.

The Court of Appeal found that the deceased had made the will of their own volition, without undue influence from the respondent. The Court examined the deceased's relationship with the respondent and the context in which the will was made, concluding that the deceased had a clear intention to leave the house to the respondent. The Court also held that the appellants' claim for reasonable financial provision was not substantiated by the evidence. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the primary judge's decision. The deceased's will stood, and the appellants' claim for a greater share of the estate was denied. The Court of Appeal made no further orders regarding the estate.