Plowright v Burge - [2005] VSC 490

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL & EQUITY DIVISION

No. 4111 of 2005

IN THE MATTER of an application pursuant to s 21 of the Wills Act 1997

and

IN THE MATTER of the Will of PAMELA MARGARET WILSON

and

IN THE MATTER of an application by RONALD DAVID PLOWRIGHT for an order authorising a Will to be made in specific terms pursuant to s 21 of the Wills Act 1997.

RONALD DAVID PLOWRIGHT	Plaintiff
v
GEOFFREY RONALD BURGE	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Hansen J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 and 31 August, 16 September 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 December 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Plowright v Burge
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 490

---

Wills and Codicils – Statutory will – Application for authorising order – Likely intentions of person lacking testamentary capacity – Whether reasonable to authorise making of will – Wills Act 1997 (No 88) ss 21, 26.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr S P Newton	Hunter Newns
For the Defendant	Mr T R Messer	Wightons Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

On 16 September 2005, pursuant to s 21 of the Wills Act 1997 (“the Act”), I made an order authorising the making of a will on behalf of Pamela Margaret Wilson (“Mrs Wilson” or “Pamela”) in terms approved by the Court. I now provide reasons for the orders made on that day.

This is an application for leave to apply for an order under s 21 of the Act authorising a will to be made in specific terms approved by the Court on behalf of Mrs Wilson. The applicant plaintiff is Mrs Wilson’s brother, Ronald David Plowright, who was appointed her administrator pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 on 8 April 1998. It is common ground that as a result of a severe head injury suffered when she fell from a horse on 10 August 1997 Mrs Wilson does not have testamentary capacity. The applicant delayed bringing the present application in the hope that Mrs Wilson would recover enough to look after her own affairs, but that is recognised as unlikely to eventuate.

The defendant to the proceeding is Geoffrey Ronald Burge (“Mr Burge” or “Geoff”) who is the residuary beneficiary under the last known will executed by Mrs Wilson dated 29 November 1994. By that will Mrs Wilson appointed Mr Burge her executor and trustee but if he did not survive her then Kenneth Edward Hampson, and gave her estate to her trustee on trust, after payment of debts and funeral and testamentary expenses, as follows:

(a)a legacy of $20,000 each to her nieces Prue Plowright and Lydia Estelle Batcheldore Plowright and $10,000 to her son Scott David Wilson, and
(b)the residue to Mr Burge for his own use and benefit absolutely should he survive her for 30 days but if not then to the Geelong Hospice Care Association.

When Mrs Wilson executed her will she and Mr Burge were in a de…

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 Plowright v Burge

Details

AGLC: Plowright v Burge [2005] VSC 490
Case: [2005] VSC 490
Decision Date: 16 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Plowright v Burge, the dispute arose between the applicant, Plowright, and the respondent, Burge, concerning the interpretation and validity of a statutory will. The case was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue revolved around whether the statutory will, created in accordance with the Wills Act 1997, truly reflected the deceased's intentions, given the deceased's lack of testamentary capacity at the time of its creation. Specifically, the court had to decide whether it was reasonable to authorise the making of the will under sections 21 and 26 of the Act.

The court considered the evidence presented regarding the deceased's mental state and the circumstances surrounding the creation of the will. It was crucial to determine if the will was a genuine expression of the deceased's wishes. The court examined the content of the will, the process of its creation, and any relevant extrinsic evidence that might shed light on the deceased's intentions. Ultimately, the court found that the statutory will did indeed reflect the deceased's likely intentions and that it was reasonable to authorise its making, given the circumstances and the applicable statutory criteria.

The Supreme Court of Queensland concluded that the statutory will was valid and should be upheld. The court's decision was grounded in the evidence and the legal framework provided by the Wills Act 1997. The applicant's application for an authorising order was granted, and the statutory will was recognised as a valid testamentary document. This decision provided clarity and resolution to the dispute, ensuring that the deceased's likely intentions were honoured in accordance with the law.

Orders