Prince v Argue

In Prince v Argue, the Supreme Court of New South Wales dealt with a dispute over the validity of wills and the entitlement of family members to make claims under the Family Provision Act 1975 (NSW). The case involved the estate of John Argue, who had executed a will in 2007 and subsequently entered into a relationship with a woman named Belinda Prince. John and Belinda later executed mutual wills in 2014, which were left unrevoked following John's death in 2018. Belinda sought to enforce the mutual wills, while John's children from a previous marriage challenged the validity of the 2014 wills, arguing that they lacked testamentary capacity and were not validly executed.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether John had testamentary capacity when he executed the 2014 wills, whether the mutual wills were valid, and whether the children could make a claim under the Family Provision Act despite the delay in bringing their application. The court had to consider the evidence regarding John's mental state at the time of executing the wills, the nature of the relationship between John and Belinda, and the applicability of the Family Provision Act to the children's claim. The court found that the 2014 wills were validly executed, that John had testamentary capacity, and that the children's claim under the Family Provision Act was out of time and not sufficiently explained, leading to the denial of leave to make the claim.

The court held that the evidence demonstrated that John was of sound mind when he executed the 2014 wills and that there was no evidence of undue influence or pressure exerted by Belinda. The court also noted that there was no formal arrangement between John and Belinda not to revoke their wills, and therefore the mutual wills were valid. Regarding the Family Provision Act, the court found that the children's application was out of time and that they had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in bringing their application. Consequently, the court denied the children's application for leave to make a claim under the Family Provision Act. As a result, the court upheld the validity of the 2014 wills, and the estate was distributed according to the terms of those wills.