Sawyer v McKenzie

In the case of Sawyer v McKenzie, the deceased, Mr Sawyer, passed away intestate, leaving behind no valid will. The dispute arose between the two parties, Sawyer and McKenzie, concerning the administration of Mr Sawyer's estate. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was tasked with deciding whether a will, claimed to have been made by Mr Sawyer, could be proved in solemn form and whether it had been revoked by destruction. Additionally, the court had to consider whether letters of administration should be granted to McKenzie upon the basis of Mr Sawyer's intestacy.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the will, if it existed, had been validly executed and if it had indeed been destroyed. Sawyer argued for the proof of the will in solemn form, while McKenzie contended that the will had been revoked by destruction and, consequently, sought letters of administration upon the intestacy. The court needed to determine the validity and existence of the will, as well as the applicable legal principles governing the revocation of wills and the administration of estates.

After examining the evidence presented by both parties, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove the existence or validity of the will in solemn form. Furthermore, the court accepted McKenzie's argument that the will had been revoked by destruction. As a result, the court ruled that the claim for proof of the will should be withdrawn. Consequently, the court granted McKenzie's counterclaim for letters of administration upon the intestacy, as there was no opposition to this application. The court concluded that McKenzie was entitled to administer Mr Sawyer's estate as the administrator upon intestacy.