Legal Research
Cases
State Trustees Ltd v Hayden

State Trustees Ltd v Hayden

Case [2002] VSC 98 10 April 2002

Testamentary Capacity

Statutory Interpretation

Succession Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 7762 of 2000

STATE TRUSTEES LIMITED (as administrator of the estate of WYNNE SLEIGHT)	Plaintiff
v
ROGER ALAN HAYDEN	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Mandie J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18-19 March 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	Judgment 26 March 2002; Reasons published: 10 April 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	State Trustees Ltd v Hayden
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 98	1^st Revision: 7 May 2002

---

Wills – statutory will – whether proposed will accurately reflects the likely intentions of person, if she had testamentary capacity – whether reasonable in all circumstances to authorise making of will - ss. 21, 26 Wills Act 1997.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R. Boaden	State Trustees Ltd
For the Defendant	Mr G. Grabau	Brett Ryan & Co

HIS HONOUR:

On 26 March 2002, in light of the age and health of Wynne Sleight, final orders were made in this proceeding without handing down reasons at that time. These are the reasons for those orders.

This is an application by State Trustees Limited, as administrator of the estate of Wynne Sleight (“Mrs Sleight”), for leave to apply for an order (and for the making of such order) under Section 21 of the Wills Act 1997 (Victoria) authorising a will to be made in specific terms approved by the Court, on behalf of Mrs Sleight, a person who (it is common ground) does not have testamentary capacity. The application was instituted by originating motion dated 27 November 2000 by a person who was then one of the administrators of the estate of Mrs Sleight (not the present plaintiff). Since then there have been a number of changes and an Appeal in this proceeding which it is unnecessary to mention further.

Section 21 of the Wills Act 1997 empowers the Court to make an order authorising a will to be made in specific terms approved by the Court or revoked on behalf of a person who does not have testamentary capacity. An applicant must obtain leave to make such an application (s. 21(2)). Before granting leave, the Court must be satisfied that the person does not have testamentary capacity (s. 26(a)) and, pursuant to s. 26(b) and (c), that “the proposed will or revocation accurately reflects the likely intentions of the person, if he or she had testamentary capacity” and that “it is reasonable in all the circumstances for the Court” to make the relevant order authorising the will or revocation.

The material now relied upon by the plaintiff is contained in a number of affidavits, all sworn in March 2002, and in various documents which are either exhibited to those affidavits or were tendered at trial. The principal affidavits relied upon are an affidavit of John Wnek sworn 8 March 2002 and an affidavit of Eileen Jean Synott sworn 18 March 2002. Mr Wnek is an Administrator employed by the plaintiff. He was cross-examined as…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading State Trustees Ltd v Hayden

Details

AGLC: State Trustees Ltd v Hayden [2002] VSC 98
Case: [2002] VSC 98
Decision Date: 10 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

State Trustees Limited brought proceedings against Hayden in relation to the interpretation and validity of a statutory will. The case involved the interpretation of a will under the Wills Act 1997, and the court was required to determine whether the proposed will accurately reflected the likely intentions of the deceased, if she had testamentary capacity, and whether it was reasonable in all circumstances to authorise the making of the will. The central legal issue was the interpretation and validity of the statutory will under sections 21 and 26 of the Wills Act 1997.

The court examined the provisions of the Wills Act 1997 and considered whether the proposed will accurately reflected the likely intentions of the deceased. It was necessary to determine if the deceased had testamentary capacity at the time of making the will, and if the will was a reasonable document in all the circumstances. The court also had to consider whether the statutory will was in compliance with the requirements of the Act, particularly the provisions regarding the attestation of the will. In reaching its decision, the court applied the relevant statutory provisions and considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties.

The court concluded that the proposed will did accurately reflect the likely intentions of the deceased, if she had testamentary capacity. It was determined that the will was reasonable in all circumstances, and the requirements of the Wills Act 1997 were satisfied. The court found that the statutory will was valid and should be admitted to probate. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of State Trustees Limited, granting the authorisation for the making of the will.

The court ordered that the statutory will be admitted to probate, and the executor of the estate, State Trustees Limited, be granted the necessary authority to administer the estate in accordance with the terms of the will. The court also directed that any costs associated with the proceedings be paid by Hayden.

Orders