Legal Research
Cases
Robinson v Jones

Robinson v Jones

Case [2015] VSC 222 1 June 2015

Testamentary Capacity

Informal Wills

Wills Act 1997

Succession Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

PROBATE LIST

S PRB 2014 11075

JAMES WILLIAM ROBINSON (in his capacity as executor of the will and estate of BRUCE DESMOND ANDREWS, deceased)	First Plaintiff
SIMON JOHN RALEIGH (in his capacity as executor of the will and estate of BRUCE DESMOND ANDREWS, deceased)	Second Plaintiff
v
JENNIFER LEE JONES	First Defendant
VICTORIAN ANIMAL AID TRUST	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	McMillan J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 April 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 June 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Robinson v Jones
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 222

---

SUCCESSION, WILLS AND PROBATE — Informal wills — Whether deceased intended informal document to be his will — Formal will duly executed one year prior — Deceased had knowledge of what constitutes a formal will — Where deceased committed suicide without signing or arranging to sign informal document — Where suicide note makes no reference to changes to testamentary intentions —Testamentary capacity of the deceased — Wills Act 1997, s 9 — Fast v Rockman [2013] VSC 18 — Hatsatouris v Hatsatouris [2001] NSWCA 408 — In the Estate of TLB [2005] SASC 459

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	S R Horgan QC	Best Hooper
G S Baker
For the First Defendant	No appearance	Henderson & Ball Lawyers
For the Second Defendant	M Clarke	Hentys Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

Bruce Desmond Andrews (‘the deceased’) committed suicide on 8 March 2013 as a result of a medication overdose. He was aged of 61 years.

The deceased left a will dated 26 June 2012 (‘the June 2012 will’) and an unexecuted draft will (‘the informal document’). The deceased’s solicitor, Mr Robinson, has deposed that in a telephone conversation with him on 1 March 2013, the deceased approved the informal document.

The plaintiffs, Mr Robinson and Mr Raleigh, are named as executors in both the June 2012 will and the informal document. Both plaintiffs are principals of Best Hooper, solicitors.

The value of the deceased’s estate at the date of death was estimated at over $13 million and the value of his superannuation fund was estimated at $615,094.

On 11 April 2014, the plaintiffs obtained a limited grant ad colligendum bona granting them the power to:

(a) sell the deceased’s real estate in Bayswater;

(b) receive the sale proceeds from the Bayswater property;

(c) pay the costs and expenses associated with the sale and this proceeding;

(d) use the proceeds of sale to meet the liabilities of the deceased and the costs and expenses of the estate; and

(e) invest the sale proceeds of the Bayswater property in an appropriate investment for trust funds.

Application by the plaintiffs

By application filed 29 July 2014, the plaintiffs made application for a grant of probate of the informal document pursuant to s 9 of the Wills Act 1997 (‘the Act’), alternatively, the June 2012 will.

By amended application filed 5 December 2014, the plaintiffs added Jennifer Lee…

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 Robinson v Jones

Details

AGLC: Robinson v Jones [2015] VSC 222
Case: [2015] VSC 222
Decision Date: 1 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in Robinson v Jones arose in the context of succession, wills, and probate law. The plaintiff, Robinson, sought to challenge the validity of an informal document as the will of the deceased, Jones, who had committed suicide. Jones had executed a formal will one year prior to his death, but Robinson claimed the deceased intended an informal document to replace it. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The legal issues before the court included whether the deceased intended the informal document to serve as his will, particularly given that he had previously executed a formal will. The court had to determine the testamentary capacity of Jones, assess whether the informal document was intended to replace the formal will, and consider the significance of the suicide note which made no reference to any changes to testamentary intentions. The court also needed to examine the application of relevant statutory provisions and case law, including sections of the Wills Act 1997 and precedents such as Fast v Rockman, Hatsatouris v Hatsatouris, and In the Estate of TLB.

The court found that the deceased had a clear understanding of what constitutes a formal will and did not intend the informal document to replace it. The court noted that Jones had not signed or arranged to sign the informal document, and the suicide note did not alter his testamentary intentions. The court held that there was no evidence of incapacity on the part of the deceased, and the informal document did not meet the legal criteria to be considered a valid will. Therefore, the formal will executed one year prior remained valid. The court dismissed Robinson's challenge and upheld the formal will as the valid testamentary document of Jones.

The final order of the court was to declare that the formal will executed by Jones one year prior to his death was valid and to be given effect as the testamentary document of the deceased. Robinson's claim was dismissed with costs.

Orders