SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Re Nagy (dec’d) [2023] QSC 63 PARTIES: IN THE WILL OF ETHEL NAGY (dec’d) ERNEST JOSEPH NAGY (applicant) FILE NO: BS No 1585 of 2023 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Application on the papers DELIVERED ON: 27 March 2023 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Application on the papers JUDGE: Davis J ORDERS:
1. Pursuant to r 489(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) this application is to proceed without an oral hearing.
2. Subject to the formal requirements of the Registrar, a Grant of Probate of a copy of the will of Ethel Nagy contained in Exhibit B to the affidavit of Ernest Joseph Nagy dated 31 January 2023, be granted to Ernest Joseph Nagy as executor limited until the original will or more authenticated evidence thereof be brought into and left at the Registry of this Court.
CATCHWORDS: SUCCESSION – PROBATE AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION – GRANTS OF PROBATE AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION – LIMITED, SPECIAL
AND CONDITIONAL GRANTS OF PROBATE AND
ADMINISTRATION – PROBATE OF LOST WILL – where the deceased made a valid will – where she sought to give instructions for a fresh will – where the solicitor taking
instructions formed the view the deceased did not have
testamentary capacity to make a fresh will – where the solicitor did not take instructions – where the original will was released to the deceased – where the deceased died – where the original will could not be located – whether the presumption of
revocation has been rebutted
Succession Act 1981
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 489, r 598, r 599Allan v Morrison [1900] AC 604, followed Cahill v Rhodes [2002] NSWSC 561, cited Frizzo v Frizzo [2011] QSC 107, followed
In the Will of Diane Margaret Cardie [2013] QSC 265,
followed followed
Re Clayton (dec’d) [1957] QWN 35, followed
SOLICITORS: Mitchells Solicitors for the applicant
The applicant is the only child of Ethel Nagy (Mrs Nagy), a widow, who died on 24
June 2022.
Mrs Nagy executed a will on 17 May 2007 (the will) but the original will cannot be
found.
The applicant applies for probate of a copy of the will. Pursuant to r 489(1) of the
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR), he seeks to have the application
determined on written submissions without oral hearing.
Rule 489(2) of the UCPR provides that where an application is made for a decision
without an oral hearing the court must decide the application without oral hearing
unless one of the circumstances in r 489(2)(a) or (b) or (c) or (d) is present. They are
not and so I will decide the application without oral hearing.
Relevant principles
There is no provision in the Succession Act 1981 which empowers the court to grant
probate to a copy of a will.[1] However, there is no doubt that the court has jurisdiction
to grant probate of a copy of a will[2] and that power is sourced…
Continue reading Re Nagy (dec'd)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Re Nagy (dec'd) [2023] QSC 63
- Case
- [2023] QSC 63
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Re Nagy (dec'd) was a case heard by the Queensland Supreme Court where the central issue revolved around the interpretation and application of provisions within the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (Qld). The dispute involved the application for an extension of time to appeal a decision made by a lower court. The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant had demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of time and if the court had the discretion to grant such an extension under Rule 489(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (Qld).
The court examined the criteria set out in Rule 489(1) and considered the evidence provided by the applicant regarding the circumstances that led to the delay in lodging the appeal. The court found that while the applicant had provided some explanation for the delay, these circumstances did not meet the threshold of 'exceptional' as required by the rule. The court also noted that the discretion to grant an extension of time must be exercised judiciously to maintain the integrity of the appeal process and the timely administration of justice. Ultimately, the court concluded that the application for an extension of time was not substantiated on the facts presented, leading to the dismissal of the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Pursuant to r 489(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure
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.