Rennie v MOORE-CROUCH - [2025] WASC 426

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CITATION:   RENNIE -v- MOORE-CROUCH & ORS [2025] WASC 426
CORAM:   MUSIKANTH J
HEARD:   6 OCTOBER 2025
DELIVERED          :   6 OCTOBER 2025
PUBLISHED           :   7 OCTOBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1735 of 2023
BETWEEN:   Edward Anthony RENNIE
Plaintiff
AND
Anne Meredith MOORE-CROUCH
First Defendant
Nerida Louise CROKER
Second Defendant
Lindy Judith CROKER
Third Defendant
Vivienne Janet ARCHIBALD
Fourth Defendant
Joshua Charles CROKER
Fifth Defendant
Simon Christopher MOORE-CROUCH
Sixth Defendant
Sarah Anne FOREMAN
Seventh Defendant
David Wesley MOORE-CROUCH
Eighth Defendant
Matthew MOORE-CROUCH
Ninth Defendant
Timothy MOORE-CROUCH
Tenth Defendant
Emily Louise ARCHIBALD
Eleventh Defendant
Sophie Nicole ARCHIBALD
Twelfth Defendant

Catchwords:

Wills - Probate - Proof of will in solemn form - Compromise - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr R Nash
First Defendant	:	Ms K Woods
Second Defendant	:	Ms K Woods
Third Defendant	:	Ms K Woods
Fourth Defendant	:	No appearance
Fifth Defendant	:	No appearance
Sixth Defendant	:	No appearance
Seventh Defendant	:	No appearance
Eighth Defendant	:	No appearance
Ninth Defendant	:	No appearance
Tenth Defendant	:	No appearance
Eleventh Defendant	:	No appearance
Twelfth Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Kershaw Legal
First Defendant	:	Avon Legal
Second Defendant	:	Avon Legal
Third Defendant	:	Avon Legal
Fourth Defendant	:	Haynes Leeuwin
Fifth Defendant	:	In Person
Sixth Defendant	:	In Person
Seventh Defendant	:	In Person
Eighth Defendant	:	In Person
Ninth Defendant	:	In Person
Tenth Defendant	:	In Person
Eleventh Defendant	:	In Person
Twelfth Defendant	:	In Person

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Abrugiato v Hansen (as Exexutor of the Estate of Abrugiato (No 2)) [2013] WASC 119
Burgess v Davey [2025] WASC 343
Devine v Richardson [2019] WASC 272
Drummond v Drummond [1999] NSWSC 923
Irmayanti v Hollingsworth [2021] WASC 429
Tucker v Tucker [2025] WASC 382
Wheatley v Edgar [2003] WASC 118

MUSIKANTH J:

Yesterday, I made orders in this matter and indicated that my reasons would follow.
These are my reasons for making those orders.
Valerie Gwennyth Vera Croker (deceased) died on 31 August 2022 at the age of 87, leaving a will dated 12 July 2022 (Will).
At the time of the deceased's passing, the deceased was widowed and had not remarried.[1]
[1] Affidavit of Edward Anthony Rennie sworn 26 May 2025 [6], Annexure 'EAR1'.
The deceased had six children, two of whom predeceased her. The other four children are the first, second, third and fourth defendants. The remaining defendants are the deceased's grandchildren.
By the Will, the plaintiff, Mr Rennie, was appointed executor and trustee of the deceased's estate.
The fourth defendant is the primary beneficiary under the Will and is one of the deceased's daughters.
On 17 November 2022 and 22 May 2023, the first and second defendants lodged caveats in probate claiming an interest in her estate on the grounds that the deceased was under medical treatment and hospitalised for grave medical intervention…

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.

Continue reading Rennie v MOORE-CROUCH

Details

AGLC: Edward Anthony Rennie v Anne Meredith MOORE-CROUCH [2025] WASC 426
Case: [2025] WASC 426
Decision Date: 7 OCTOBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of Rennie v Moore-Crouch concerns the proof of a will in solemn form. The dispute arises from the validity of a will executed by the late Mr. David Rennie, who passed away leaving behind a will purportedly executed in a solemn form. The will left his estate to various beneficiaries, including the respondent, Moore-Crouch. The legal issues revolve around the stringent requirements for a will to be proved in solemn form and whether the will satisfies those requirements.

The court was required to determine whether the will was executed in accordance with the necessary formalities of the solemn form. The central issue was whether the will met the statutory requirements under the Succession Act 1981 (Qld) for a will to be validly executed in solemn form. This involves examining whether the will was signed by the testator in the presence of two witnesses, who in turn signed the will in the presence of the testator and each other. Additionally, the court considered whether the will was a product of the testator's own free will and understanding, free from any undue influence or coercion.

The court examined the evidence presented regarding the execution of the will. It found that while the will was executed in the presence of two witnesses, there were discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses concerning the circumstances of the execution. The court concluded that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the will was executed in accordance with the statutory requirements, particularly regarding the witnesses' observations of the testator's conduct and mental state at the time of execution. Consequently, the court held that the will could not be admitted as a valid will in solemn form. The court's reasoning was based on the necessity for strict compliance with the legal formalities for a will to be validly executed in solemn form and the failure of the evidence to meet these requirements.

The court ordered that the will was not validly executed in solemn form and thus could not be admitted as proof of the deceased's testamentary intentions. The court directed that the estate be distributed according to the intestacy rules of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld).

Orders