Smith v Hayler: Estate of Alan Oakley Smith

The case of Smith v Hayler: Estate of Alan Oakley Smith involved a dispute over the validity of a Will made by the late Alan Oakley Smith, a blind elderly man. The dispute centred on whether the Will was validly executed and whether it should be admitted to probate in place of an earlier Will. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central legal issue before the court was whether the Will was validly executed given the testator's blindness and lack of attestation, and whether the Will should be admitted to probate in place of an earlier Will.

The court had to determine whether the Will met the requirements of s 9 of the Wills Act 1977 (NSW), which mandates that a Will must be in writing, signed by the testator, and witnessed by at least two people who attest the signature in the presence of the testator. Given the testator's blindness, the court considered whether the lack of attestation and reading of the Will to him was sufficient to establish the requisite testamentary capacity. The court also examined whether the onus of proof shifted to the party asserting the validity of the Will once there was a suspicion that it had not been properly executed.

The court found that the Will was not validly executed because it was not read to the testator in the presence of the witnesses, and there was no other sufficient basis to assume that he knew and approved the contents. The court held that the changed Will involved a complex change that would have required reading to the testator for it to be sufficiently established that he knew and approved it. The court further noted that once a suspicion was cast on the Will, the onus of proof shifted to the party asserting its validity. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to lead to setting aside the later Will and admitting the earlier one, but this did not fall within the problematic notion of compromise. The court ordered that the earlier Will should be admitted to probate.

The court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that a Will is properly executed, particularly where the testator has disabilities that may impact their ability to understand and approve the contents. The court's reasoning also underscores the importance of the onus of proof shifting to the party asserting the validity of a Will once there is a suspicion that it has not been properly executed. The final orders of the court were that the earlier Will should be admitted to probate.