Legal Research
Cases
Re White; Montgomery & Anor v Taylor

Re White; Montgomery & Anor v Taylor

Link copied

Case Copied 9 February 2018 29 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
TRUSTS, EQUITY AND PROBATE LIST

S PRB 2017 03904

IN THE MATTER of the Will of GEORGE WHITE deceased

JOHN MONTGOMERY	First Plaintiff
-and-
JANE MONTGOMERY	Second Plaintiff
v
MARY TAYLOR	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	McMillan J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 November 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 February 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re White; Montgomery & Anor v Taylor[1]
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 16

[1]This judgment has been anonymised by the adoption of pseudonyms where relevant.

---

SUCCESSION, WILLS AND PROBATE — Informal computer will — Where testator took own life — Whether testator intended informal document to be his final will — Whether testator had testamentary capacity — Wills Act 1997, ss 7 and 9.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R Boaden	William Murray Solicitors
For the Defendant	Mr R Phillips	Kenna Teasdale Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

George White died on 18 April 2015 (‘the deceased’). He was survived by his domestic partner (‘the defendant’), his three children with the defendant, Andrew, David and Sarah, and his child from a previous relationship, Martin.

The plaintiffs are the deceased’s sister (‘the second plaintiff’) and her husband (‘the first plaintiff’).

By originating motion filed 16 March 2017, the plaintiffs seek a grant of probate of an informal computer will made on 18 April 2015 (‘the informal will’), pursuant to s 9 of the Wills Act 1997 (‘the Act’), with leave reserved to the defendant. The informal will bears the date 17 April 2015 and was discovered in a computer file in the deceased’s computer. The informal will is said to have been typed by the deceased prior to him taking his own life in the early hours of 18 April 2015.

The defendant objects to the application on two grounds: at the time that it was written, the deceased lacked testamentary capacity; and the deceased did not intend for the informal will to be his will.

Failing proof of the informal will bearing the date 17 April 2015, the deceased’s estate would be distributed in accordance with the relevant intestacy provisions.[2]
[2]Administration and Probate Act 1958, ss 51, 52.

At the time of the deceased’s death, the assets of his estate included a pharmacy in a country town, a car, an interest in pharmacies in another state of Australia and funds in certain loan accounts. The most recent estimate of the value of the deceased’s estate is approximately $1,555,116.

Evidence

The facts are not in dispute, save for some minor objections.[3] The parties rely upon five affidavits sworn by the plaintiffs, an affidavit and letter from the deceased’s general practitioner, Dr Minh Dzung Ho, who also gave evidence at the trial, two affidavits sworn by the deceased’s lawyer, Mr Roger Blythman, an affidavit sworn by Dr John Gall and a confidential affidavit sworn by the defendant.
[3]The last sentence of [12] and the entirety of [17] are struck…

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 Re White; Montgomery & Anor v Taylor 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: [2018] VSC 16
Decision Date: 9 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re White; Montgomery & Anor v Taylor involved a dispute over the validity of a will executed by the deceased, who had taken their own life. The primary question before the court was whether the deceased intended the informal document in question to be their final will. Additionally, the court had to determine if the deceased possessed the requisite testamentary capacity at the time of execution. This matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the Wills Act 1997, particularly sections 7 and 9, which address the formalities of will-making and testamentary capacity respectively. The court was tasked with discerning the deceased's intentions in light of the informal nature of the document and whether it could be accepted as a valid will. The court also had to examine whether the deceased had the mental capacity necessary to understand the consequences of their actions when they executed the document.

In its judgment, the court determined that the document in question did not meet the formal requirements of a valid will as stipulated in the Wills Act 1997. It found that the deceased did not intend the informal document to serve as their final will and that the deceased likely lacked the testamentary capacity due to the circumstances surrounding their death. The court concluded that the document was not a valid will and did not reflect the deceased's final wishes. Consequently, the estate was to be distributed according to the intestacy rules of the Succession Act 2006.

As a result of the court's findings, the estate was to be distributed among the deceased's heirs in accordance with the provisions of the Succession Act 2006. The court's decision ensured that the estate was administered in a manner that respected the deceased's potential incapacity and the lack of formality in the document presented.

Orders