Saltmer v Rennick Lawyers Pty Ltd

Saltmer v Rennick Lawyers Pty Ltd involved a dispute regarding the characterisation of will instructions provided by a deceased individual to the respondent, Rennick Lawyers Pty Ltd. The applicant, Saltmer, sought a certified copy of the will instructions under section 33Z of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld). The central issue was whether these instructions constituted or may have constituted the deceased's will, an alteration to their will, or part of their will, as defined under the Act. Rennick Lawyers resisted the application on the grounds that the documents in question did not qualify as a will and also raised a claim of legal professional privilege. The matter became more complex when Saltmer was granted limited letters of administration in a related proceeding, allowing her to bring proceedings to determine the validity of the will instructions. Consequently, the application under section 33Z became largely moot.

The court was required to determine whether the will instructions could be considered a will under the Act, particularly in light of section 10, which requires a will to be signed and witnessed. The court also had to consider the implications of section 18, which allows for a document to be considered a will if it purports to state the deceased’s testamentary intentions, even if it does not meet the formal requirements of a will. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the evidence of testamentary intention against the claim of legal professional privilege raised by the respondent. The court had to ascertain whether the instructions, which were not signed or witnessed, could still be considered a will or part of a will under section 33Z, particularly given the deceased's explicit acknowledgment that the instructions were not intended to be his will.

The court found that the will instructions did not satisfy the requirements of section 10 of the Act because they were neither signed nor witnessed. Although they could be said to reflect the deceased's testamentary intentions, the court determined that section 33Z of the Act does not apply to documents that, on their face, do not purport to be a will. This was particularly evident because the deceased had signed a "No will acknowledgment" form, explicitly stating that he did not wish the will instructions to be his will. The court held that the instructions did not meet the criteria for being considered a will or part of a will under section 33Z. Consequently, the application for a certified copy of the will instructions was dismissed. The court also determined that Saltmer should pay the respondent's costs of the application, given that her application was largely unsuccessful.

The court ordered that the application was dismissed and that Saltmer pay the respondent's costs of the application. The ruling clarified that section 33Z of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld) does not extend to documents that do not explicitly purport to be a will, even if they contain testamentary intentions, and especially when accompanied by a contrary acknowledgment from the deceased.