Starr v Miller

Case [2022] NSWCA 46


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Starr v Miller [2022] NSWCA 46
Hearing dates: 22 November 2021
Date of orders: 29 March 2022
Decision date: 29 March 2022
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Meagher JA at [72];
White JA at [73]
Decision:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Catchwords:

SUCCESSION — contested probate application —whether the deceased had testamentary capacity at the time she gave instructions for and executed the will — whether the deceased knew and approved of the terms of the will — whether deceased’s statement that she was not agreeable to one of her daughters getting any money was a reference to a testamentary gift — whether any “suspicious circumstances”

Legislation Cited:

Succession Act 2006 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

ASIC v Hellicar (2013) 247 CLR 345; [2012] HCA 17

Bailey v Bailey (1924) 34 CLR 558; [1924] HCA 21

Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549

Boughton v Knight (1873) LR 3 P&D 64

Drivas v Jakopovic (2019) 100 NSWLR 505; [2019] NSWCA 218

Frizzo v Frizzo [2011] QCA 308

Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8

Mekhail v Hana; Mekail v Hana [2019] NSWCA 197

Nicholson v Knaggs [2009] VSC 64

Payne v Parker [1976] 1 NSWLR 191

Zorbas v Sidiropoulous (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 197

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Susan Maree Starr (Appellant)
Margo Anne Miller (First Respondent)
David Patrick Brough (Second Respondent)
Bradford Frederick McInnes Stuart (Third Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
R D Wilson SC (Appellant)
C Harris SC (Respondents)

Solicitors:
Young & Muggleton (Appellant)
Campbell Paton & Taylor (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2021/159930
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Equity
Citation:

[2021] NSWSC 426

Date of Decision:
6 May 2021
Before:
Hallen J
File Number(s):
2019/162571; 2020/34748

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

On 26 May 2018, Ms Nancy Louise Starr (the deceased) died aged 72 years, leaving four adult daughters (Belinda, Margo, Susan and Emma) surviving her. She left an estate with an agreed gross value of $8,674,379. This included substantial rural property interests. By a will dated 16 July 2012 she, in essence, left her principal rural interests and related assets to Margo, with the remainder to be divided equally between her three other daughters.

In the Equity Division proceedings, from which the present appeal is brought, Susan sought revocation of a grant of probate in common form which had been made in respect of the 2012 will. She alleged that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity at the time of executing that will, and that the deceased’s knowledge and approval of the terms of the will were not established. Susan sought probate of an earlier will. In separate proceedings, she also sought further provision out of the estate pursuant to the Succession Act 2006 (NSW).

By a judgment of 6 May 2021 Hallen J granted probate in solemn form of the 2012 will to the executors…

Continue reading Starr v Miller

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Starr v Miller [2022] NSWCA 46
Case
[2022] NSWCA 46
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a contested probate application brought by the respondent, Mr. Miller, against the appellant, Ms. Starr. The dispute centred on whether the deceased possessed testamentary capacity at the time she provided instructions for and executed her will, and whether she knew and approved of its contents. A key question was whether the deceased's statement expressing her disagreement with one of her daughters receiving any money constituted a reference to a testamentary gift. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in finding that the deceased had testamentary capacity and knew and approved of the will. Specifically, the court had to consider the significance of the deceased's statement regarding her daughter and whether this, along with other circumstances, constituted "suspicious circumstances" that would warrant a finding against the validity of the will.

The Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's findings. Their Honours reasoned that the deceased's statement, while potentially ambiguous in isolation, was understood in the context of the will's provisions and the surrounding evidence. The court found no evidence to suggest that the deceased lacked the requisite understanding of her assets, the claims of potential beneficiaries, or the effect of the will. The circumstances were not deemed sufficiently suspicious to displace the presumption of capacity and knowledge and approval.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.