Sinnamon v Proe

[1996] QSC 164

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF QUEENSLAND
  No. 750 of 1995

[Sinnamon & Ors v. Proe]

BETWEEN:
  IVAN BENJAMIN SINNAMON, ESTELLE JANE DRYNAN,
  ROSS BRIAN TAYLOR & NORMAN JAMES HENRY
  Plaintiffs

AND:
  DAVID JAMES PROE
  Defendant

JUDGMENT  -  THOMAS J.

Delivered:4 September 1996

CATCHWORDS:      WILLS, PROBATE AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION - Making a will - Proof in Solemn form of will made by 93 year old testator - Testamentary capacity - Lack of knowledge and approval - Undue influence.

Counsel:Mr S. Williams QC with him Mr R. Whiteford for the Plaintiffs

Mr D. McGill with him Mr A Wilson for the Defendant

Solicitors:George Hatzis & Associates for the Plaintiffs

Biggs & Biggs Solicitors for the Defendants

Hearing dates:               29 July 1996 - 5 August 1996

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF QUEENSLAND
  No. 750 of 1995

[Sinnamon & Ors v. Proe]

BETWEEN:
  IVAN BENJAMIN SINNAMON, ESTELLE JANE DRYNAN,
  ROSS BRIAN TAYLOR & NORMAN JAMES HENRY
  Plaintiffs

AND:
  DAVID JAMES PROE
  Defendant

JUDGMENT  -  THOMAS J.

Delivered 4 September 1996

OUTLINE OF FACTS...................................................................................................................   5

The PT Will - 7 May 1993................................................................................................ 12

Medical Assessments......................................................................................................... 19

The 18 June Will................................................................................................................ 22

Inter vivos Transfers.......................................................................................................... 26

Observations on these wills................................................................................................ 27

Events from August 1993................................................................................................... 28

Incident of 6 September 1993................................................................................ 29

Sir Hercules' Birthday Party, November 1993........................................................ 29

ISSUES......................................................................................................................................... 31

Testamentary Capacity...................................................................................................... 31

Knowledge and Understanding of the Wills........................................................................ 35

Undue Influence................................................................................................................. 37

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................ 44

APPENDICES....................................................................................................................   45 & 46

This is an action for proof in solemn form of the will of Sir Hercules Sinnamon executed on 18 June 1993.  It will be referred to as "the 18 June will".  The plaintiffs are the four executors, two of whom benefit directly and extensively by virtue of that will.  The defendant David Proe is a minor beneficiary.
The issues raised against granting probate of the 18 June will are lack of testamentary capacity, lack of knowledge and approval of its contents and undue influence of two of the plaintiffs (Ivan Sinnamon and Norman Henry).
Mr Proe has propounded a will made only relatively shortly before the 18 June will, namely a will of 7 May 1993.  During the proceedings that will has been referred to as "the PT will" presumably because Perpetual Trustees was included as an executor.  Under the PT will Mr Proe and his siblings would be entitled to a slightly larger benefit.  I have the distinct impression that Perpetual Trustees has had more input into the defence in this case than the Proes.  Under the 18 June will, Perpetual Trustees is no longer an executor, and Ivan Sinnamon and Norman Henry would each obtain very substantial benefits which were not conferred by the PT will.  The plaintiffs allege that the PT will is ineffective on the ground that it was revoked by a later valid will namely the 18 June will, and alternatively on the basis that its maker did not know and approve its contents.  This latter argument raises the question of misunderstandings between Sir Hercules and…