Re McPhee; Perpetual Trustees Co Ltd v Lynch

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
IN ITS PROBATE JURISDICTION

S PRB 2020 22512

IN THE MATTER of the Will and Estate of BRENDA BLANCH McPHEE (also known as WENDA BLANCH McPHEE and WENDA BLANCH ASHLEY), deceased

APPLICATION BY:

PERPETUAL TRUSTEEES COMPANY LIMITED ACN 000 001 007	Plaintiff
v
LISA JAYNE LYNCH	Applicant

---

JUDGE:	Irving AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 March 2022
DATE OF DECISION:	29 April 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re McPhee; Perpetual Trustees Co Ltd v Lynch
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 213

---

WILL — Testamentary capacity — Test — Whether circumstances arousing suspicion — Will admitted to probate — Onus on propounder of codicil to demonstrate a prima facie case for challenging a grant of probate of Will— Codicil in favour of propounder - Elderly testator - Gardiner v Hughes (No 2) [2019] VSCA 198 - Veall v Veall (2015) 46 VR 123, applied.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Ms R Grayson Morison of counsel	HWL Ebsworth Lawyers
For the Applicant	Mr P D Reynolds of counsel	KCL Law

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background......................................................................................................................................... 2

The Will.......................................................................................................................................... 3
Codicil............................................................................................................................................. 4
Grant of probate............................................................................................................................ 5
Amended application for grant of probate............................................................................... 8

Lisa’s evidence.................................................................................................................................... 9

Mr Arthur’s statement.................................................................................................................. 9
Ms Smith’s statement.................................................................................................................. 11
Dr Niu’s report............................................................................................................................ 13
Lisa’s affidavit............................................................................................................................. 17

Perpetual Trustees’ evidence......................................................................................................... 17

Mr McBride.................................................................................................................................. 17
Ms Laguna.................................................................................................................................... 18
Ms Brown..................................................................................................................................... 19
Mr Engleby................................................................................................................................... 20
Mrs Engleby................................................................................................................................. 21
Lucy Smith................................................................................................................................... 22

Lisa’s evidence in response to Perpetual Trustees’ evidence.................................................. 24

Legal principles relevant to prima facie case.............................................................................. 25

Legal principles relevant to capacity and knowledge and approval..................................... 26

Prima facie case on Deceased’s capacity at the time of making her Codicil........................ 30

Lisa’s submissions....................................................................................................................... 30
Perpetual Trustees’ submissions............................................................................................... 31

Consideration of Lisa’s prima facie case..................................................................................... 32

HIS HONOUR:

Brenda Blanch McPhee (Deceased) died on 14 July 2018, leaving a will dated 12 September 2002 (Will) and a codicil dated 30 September 2015 (Codicil). The Will appointed the Deceased’s son, Timothy Ashley (Timothy), as executor and trustee of the estate. The Codicil revoked the executor appointment clause in the Will and replaced it with a clause appointing both Timothy and the Deceased’s stepdaughter, Lisa Lynch (Lisa) as executors.

On 2 October 2019, Lisa renounced her right and title to the probate and execution of the Will and Codicil and the administration of the estate. On 1 October 2019, Timothy authorised Perpetual Trustees Company Limited (Perpetual Trustees) to apply for a grant of representation of the Deceased’s estate.

On 1 July 2020, Perpetual Trustees applied for a grant of probate of the Will and Codicil. On 16 November 2020, Perpetual Trustees amended its application to seek probate of the Will only, asserting that the Deceased lacked testamentary capacity at the time of executing the Codicil.

On 19 November 2020, the Court granted probate of the Will to Perpetual Trustees (Grant).

On 26…

In the case of Perpetual Trustees Co Ltd v Lynch, the court was asked to determine the validity of a codicil made to the will of the deceased, James McPhee. The respondent, Lynch, challenged the codicil's validity, arguing that the testator lacked testamentary capacity when he made it. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court's task was to consider whether the circumstances surrounding the creation of the codicil were such that they would arouse suspicion regarding the testator's testamentary capacity. The propounder of the codicil bore the onus of establishing a prima facie case that the codicil was validly executed.

The court considered the applicable legal principles, drawing on cases such as Gardiner v Hughes (No 2) and Veall v Veall. It was established that the onus was on the propounder of the codicil to demonstrate that the testator had testamentary capacity at the time of executing the codicil. The court also noted that the testator was elderly and that this alone did not necessarily indicate incapacity. Instead, the court had to consider the specific circumstances of the case. In this instance, the court found that the propounder had discharged their onus, and the codicil was valid.

The Supreme Court of Victoria concluded that the propounder had demonstrated a prima facie case for the validity of the codicil. The court found that the testator had testamentary capacity when he executed the codicil, and there were no circumstances that would arouse suspicion about his capacity. The court admitted the codicil to probate, and the testamentary dispositions it contained were upheld. As a result, the respondent's challenge to the codicil's validity was unsuccessful.

Keep reading for free

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established