Sankari v Abouelhamd

The case involved a dispute over the succession rights of the deceased, who had executed two wills. The first will was executed in 2004, and the second in 2011. The parties in dispute were the applicants, who were beneficiaries under the second will, and the respondents, who were beneficiaries under the first will. The applicants sought a grant of probate under the second will, and the respondents opposed the application, arguing that the second will had not been duly executed. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court included whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the due execution of the second will, whether the absence of the original will in evidence precluded a grant of probate, and whether the presumption of destruction with intent to revoke could be rebutted. The court had to consider the relevant common law principles and statutory provisions, including sections 31 and 33 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). The applicants argued that the due execution of the second will was established by the testimony of witnesses and other evidence, and that the presumption of destruction with intent to revoke was rebutted by the evidence.

The court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish the due execution of the second will, despite the absence of the original will in evidence. The court also found that the presumption of destruction with intent to revoke was rebutted by the evidence, and that the grant of probate under the first will should be revoked. The court noted that the applicants had established a strong case for the due execution of the second will, and that the respondents had failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. The court emphasised the importance of the due execution of wills and the need for clear and convincing evidence to establish it. The court made a grant of probate under the second will and revoked the grant of probate under the first will.