Re Maddock; Bailey v Maddock (No 2)

In this case, the deceased, Re Maddock, left a will that was contested by Bailey, a named beneficiary, on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and suspicious circumstances. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's refusal to accept an open offer to settle the contested probate proceeding was unreasonable, and if so, whether the plaintiff should be ordered to pay the defendant's costs.

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the plaintiff's decision not to accept the open offer. It was determined that the plaintiff's refusal was unreasonable, as the evidence presented did not sufficiently support the contention that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity or that suspicious circumstances were present. Additionally, the court noted that the determination of the validity of the will was a prerequisite to the approval of any compromise. Consequently, the plaintiff's failure to accept the open offer was deemed unreasonable and unjustified.

The court found that the plaintiff's conduct in refusing to accept the open offer was unreasonable under the provisions of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) s 24. The court referenced Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian Workcover Authority (No 2) (2005) 13 VR 435, which established the precedent for such circumstances. As a result, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding.