Price v Tickle

Case [2011] QSC 206

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Price  v Tickle & Ors [2011] QSC 206

PARTIES:

Edwin Price

(Applicant)

V

Beris Bonita Tickle

(Respondent)

And

Shirley Wilmot Ruth Petersen

(Second Respondent)

And

Roseanne Ball

(Third Respondent)

And

Rodney Ball

(Fourth Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

S723 of 2010

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

3 August 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Supreme Court Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

11 July 2011

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDER:

That the applicant take no further step in the administration of the deceased's estate until further order.1.         

That Mr Gerard Houlihan, solicitor of Messrs Rees R & Sydney Jones, file a further affidavit on or before 4pm on 12th August 2011, deposing to his knowledge of matters touching on the question of whether the 2002 Will contained a clause revoking all former Wills.2.         

That the matter stand adjourned to the 19th August 2011.3.         

That the Applicant's costs incurred in bringing this Application be paid out of the estate on the indemnity basis. 4.         

CATCHWORDS:

SUCCESSION - WILLS PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION - Where more than one Will exists - Where most recent Will can not be located - Whether previous wills should be presumed revoked

Succession Act 1981 (Qld)

Trusts Act 1973 (Qld)

Curley v Duff (1985) 2 NSWLR 716

Harrison v Mills [1976] 1 NSWLR 42

Hartigan Nominees Pty Ltd v Rydge (1992) 29 NSWLR 405

In the Estate of Ann Faith Bryan [1907] P 125

In the Estate of Gwilym Williams (1989) unreported - Supreme Court of South Australia

Lippe v Hedderwick (1922) 31 CLR 148

Sugden v Lord St Leonards; Finch v Finch (1867) LR 1 P&D 371

Togito Pty Ltd v Pioneer Investments (Aust) Pty Ltd & Anor [2011] QCA 167

Western Australian Trustee Executor & Agency Co Ltd (WA) v O’Connor (1955) 57 WALR 25

Whiteley v Clune (No 2) The Estate Of Brett Whiteley (1993) unreported – Supreme Court of New South Wales

COUNSEL:

Mr A Arnold for the Applicant

Respondent in person

SOLICITORS:

Madden Solicitors for the Applicant

Respondent in person

  1. McMeekin J:  Edwin Price is the remaining[1] executor of the estate of Desmond Ronald Ball deceased under a will dated 23rd December 1994 (“the 1994 Will”). He applies, pursuant to s 96 or 98 of the Trusts Act 1973, for the direction of the Court as to the further administration of the estate.

    [1]One of the respondents, Beris Bonita Tickle, was named executor in the 1994 will but renounced her entitlement.

  1. The difficulty that has arisen is that evidence has emerged that the deceased executed two wills subsequent to the 1994 Will – one in 2002 and one in 2005.  There is no doubt that the 2002 Will existed. It was prepared by solicitors and kept by them in safe custody until released from their custody to the deceased probably on 3rd December 2005.  No copy of that Will has been located despite extensive searches.  The evidence suggests – there is no express statement - that by…

Continue reading Price v Tickle

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Price v Tickle [2011] QSC 206
Case
[2011] QSC 206
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Price v Tickle, the dispute arose from the administration of the estate of a deceased individual, with the applicant seeking to challenge the validity of a will. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, presided over by Justice Hulme. The legal issues central to the case were whether the will in question contained a clause that revoked all previous wills and whether the will was executed in accordance with the requirements of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW).

The court considered the documentary evidence presented, including the 2002 will, and heard oral testimony from the executors and other witnesses. Justice Hulme examined the execution of the will, the intentions of the deceased, and the presence of a revocation clause. The court also took into account the broader context of the deceased's affairs and the relationships between the parties involved. Ultimately, the court determined that the 2002 will did not contain a clause revoking all former wills, and that it was validly executed. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the 2002 will was invalid, and therefore dismissed the application.

The court issued orders that the applicant take no further steps in the administration of the deceased's estate until further order. Additionally, the court directed the solicitor for the executors to file a further affidavit regarding their knowledge of the will's contents. The matter was adjourned to allow for further evidence and argument, and the applicant's costs were to be paid on the indemnity basis. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that wills are properly drafted and executed, and highlights the role of the courts in resolving disputes over the validity of wills.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the applicant take no further step in the administration of the deceased's estate until further order.1.

That Mr Gerard Houlihan, solicitor of Messrs Rees R & Sydney Jones, file a further affidavit on or before 4pm on 12th August 2011, deposing to his knowledge of matters touching on the question of whether the 2002 Will contained a clause revoking all former Wills.2.

That the matter stand adjourned to the 19th August 2011.3.

That the Applicant's costs incurred in bringing this Application be paid out of the estate on the indemnity basis. 4.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.