Re Gardiner

Case [2016] VSC 541


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

TRUSTS, EQUITY & PROBATE LIST

S PRB 2015 18727

LACHLAN OWEN STUART HUGHES and KERRIE LOUISE SLES (as executors of the will of DOUGLAS WILLIAM GARDINER, deceased) Plaintiffs
v  
JAMES ALEXANDER GARDINER & ORS (in accordance with the attached schedule) Applicants/Defendants

---

JUDGE:

McMillan J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

7 March 2016

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

9 September 2016

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Re Gardiner

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2016] VSC 541

---

PROBATE — Application for revocation of a grant of probate — Standing of applicants to make application — Re Egan [1963] VR 318 — In re Gillard [1949] VLR 378 — Onus v Alcoa Australia Limited (1981) 149 CLR 27 — Re Culina; Poulos v Pellicer [2004] NSWSC 504 — Nicholson v Kollias [2005] VSC 473 — Van Wyk v Albon [2011] VSC 120 — Griffiths v Lewis [2013] VSC 609 —Re Kouvakas; Lucas v Konakas [2014] NSWSC 786

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Separate question as to standing of applicants to revoke the grant of probate — Separate question as to standing of applicants to bring claim on behalf of estate — Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, r 47.04(a) — Civil Procedure Act 2010, Parts 2.3, 2.4, 4.4

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs Mr S Pitt Lawson Hughes Peter Walsh
For the First, Second and Third Defendant Mr C Scerri QC with
Mr A Verspaandonk
Holding Redlich
For the Fourth Defendant Mr R S Wotherspoon Thomson Geer

SCHEDULE

BETWEEN:

LACHLAN OWEN STUART HUGHES First Plaintiff
- and -
KERRIE LOUISE SLES Second Plaintiff
- and -
JAMES ALEXANDER GARDINER First defendant/Applicant
- and -
SARAH JANE BORRACK Second defendant/Applicant
- and -
CHARLES GEORGE GARDINER Third defendant/Applicant
- and -
ZOE MAY SLES, a minor, by her litigation guardian KERRIE LOUISE SLES Fourth Defendant

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

  1. Douglas William Gardiner (‘the deceased’) died on 26 June 2015.  Probate of his will dated 6 May 2015 was granted to the plaintiffs on 25 January 2016. 

  1. The applicants are the niece and nephews of the deceased.  They are the adult children of the deceased’s brother, Robert Gardiner, who pre-deceased the deceased.  They seek, inter alia, to revoke the grant of probate to the plaintiffs.  They receive no benefit under the deceased’s probated will or under his two prior wills made in 2012 (‘the penultimate will’) and 2008 (‘the third will’) respectively.  

  1. The first and second applicants depose to having reasonable concerns about the testamentary capacity of the deceased to make any of these wills and that all of them are invalid for want of testamentary capacity.  In the event that all wills made by the deceased are invalid, the deceased’s estate would fall to be distributed on  intestacy.  The deceased’s intestacy beneficiaries are his brother, James Gardiner (senior) as to one half of the estate and each of the applicants as to one sixth of the estate.[1]  

    [1]

Continue reading Re Gardiner

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Re Gardiner [2016] VSC 541
Case
[2016] VSC 541
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Re Gardiner involved an application for the revocation of a grant of probate in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicants, who were interested parties, sought to challenge the validity of a grant of probate issued to the respondent. The dispute centred around the standing of the applicants to make such an application, as well as their ability to bring a claim on behalf of the estate. The applicants argued that the executor had failed to properly administer the estate and that they had a legitimate interest in ensuring the estate was administered correctly.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the applicants had the requisite standing to apply for the revocation of the grant of probate and whether they were entitled to bring a claim on behalf of the estate. The applicants needed to demonstrate a sufficient connection to the estate and a legitimate interest in its proper administration. The court considered precedent cases such as Re Egan, In re Gillard, Onus v Alcoa Australia Limited, Re Culina; Poulos v Pellicer, Nicholson v Kollias, Van Wyk v Albon, Griffiths v Lewis, and Re Kouvakas; Lucas v Konakas to determine the principles governing standing in such matters.

The court found that the applicants did not have the necessary standing to apply for the revocation of the grant of probate. The applicants failed to establish a sufficient connection to the estate or a legitimate interest in its administration. The court held that the applicants did not meet the criteria set out in the relevant cases and statutes, including the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 and the Civil Procedure Act 2010. Consequently, the application for revocation was dismissed, and the grant of probate remained valid.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.