Quartermain Estate: Steggall v Quartermain - [2009] NSWSC 553

CITATION: Quartermain Estate - Steggall v Quartermain [2009] NSWSC 553

HEARING DATE(S): Determined in Chambers on the papers.

JUDGMENT DATE :
17 June 2009

JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Probate List

JUDGMENT OF: Sackville AJA

DECISION: Informal codicil admitted to probate.

CATCHWORDS: SUCCESSION – PROBATE – INFORMAL CODICIL – Whether document in handwriting of deceased was intended to have immediate testamentary effect – question of fact.

LEGISLATION CITED: Succession Act 2006 (NSW) – s 8

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Masters (dec’d), In the estate of; Hill v Plummer (1994) 33 NSWLR 446

PARTIES: John Warwick Steggall (Plaintiff)
Bernice Patricia Quartermain (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 123443/08

SOLICITORS: Roper & Steggall (Plaintiff)
Collins & Thompson (Defendant)

123443/08 Quartermain Estate: Steggall v Quartermain

JUDGMENT

17 June, 2009

Introduction

1 This is an application in solemn form that there be admitted to probate a will, formally and duly executed, together with a handwritten document, not executed by the deceased, but said to be a codicil to the formal will. By consent of all parties, I have dealt with this matter in Chambers on the papers. I have read all affidavits filed by the parties and their written submissions.

2 The Plaintiff is the executor appointed by the deceased, Barry Quartermain, in a will dated 21 June 2005. That will was prepared by the Plaintiff, who was the deceased’s solicitor for many years. The will is duly executed and witnessed. There is no issue as to its validity. I will call it the “formal will”.

3 The deceased was admitted to hospital on 25 April 2008 and died there on 22 May 2008. After his death, there was found on the dining room table in the deceased’s home a spiral bound notebook, about A5 in size, in which the deceased had written in his own handwriting. The writing, which occupies two and a half pages, is not dated but it is a fair inference from the evidence of the deceased’s daughter and his ex-wife that it was written by the deceased between 24 March and 25 April 2008. There was no one else living in the deceased’s home at that time. There are no words in the document which expressly state that the deceased intended it to operate as a will or codicil. The document has been referred to as the “informal codicil” and for convenience I will continue to refer to it thus.

4 The Plaintiff seeks a grant to him in solemn form of the formal will and a declaration, pursuant to s 8 Succession Act 2006 (NSW), that the informal codicil constitutes a valid codicil to the formal will. All beneficiaries under the formal will and the informal codicil, being six of deceased’s eight children, have been given notice of these proceedings. Only one appears to oppose the declaration as to the validity of the informal codicil and her solicitors have provided written submissions. All beneficiaries consent to the matter being dealt with in Chambers.

5 The facts in addition to those which…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Quartermain Estate: Steggall v Quartermain and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] NSWSC 553
Decision Date: 17 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Steggall v Quartermain, the primary issue was the interpretation of a handwritten document as a codicil to a deceased's will. The estate of Mr. Quartermain was the subject of dispute, with the respondent, Steggall, asserting rights based on the purported codicil. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues revolved around whether the handwritten document was intended to be an informal codicil, thereby altering the distribution of the deceased's estate. The court had to determine if the document was a valid codicil and whether it was intended to have immediate testamentary effect. The central question was one of intention, requiring a factual determination based on the evidence presented.

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the creation of the document and the surrounding evidence. It considered the deceased's state of mind, the context in which the document was written, and any statements or actions by the deceased that might indicate an intention for the document to be a testamentary disposition. Ultimately, the court found that the document did not constitute a valid informal codicil, as there was insufficient evidence to establish the necessary intention for it to have testamentary effect.

The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal principles. The court held that the document did not meet the criteria for an informal codicil and that the estate should be distributed according to the formal will. The court's ruling was definitive, and no further appeal was made.

Orders