Terence David Howroyd v Richard John Howroyd - [2012] HCASL 197

TERENCE DAVID HOWROYD
v
RICHARD JOHN HOWROYD
[2012] HCASL 197
H4/2012

The respondent made an application to the Supreme Court of Tasmania for the pronouncement of a will and grant of probate. The pronouncement of the will was contested by the applicant who claimed that the testator lacked testamentary capacity at the relevant time, that the testator did not know and approve of the contents of the will and that the will was not signed in the presence of two witnesses as required by s 10 of the Wills Act 1992 (Tas).
On 23 December 2011, the Supreme Court (Wood J) pronounced the validity of the will and ordered a grant of probate. The applicant appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania.
On 11 May 2012, the Full Court (Crawford CJ, Evans and Porter JJ) dismissed the appeal and held that the primary judge did not err in concluding that the concerns raised by the suspicious circumstances surrounding the preparation and execution of the will had been dispelled. The Full Court was satisfied that the testator had testamentary capacity and knew and approved of the contents of the will at the relevant time. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against the decision of the Full Court.
The applicant asserts that the Full Court erred in the application of established legal principles guiding the curial determination of an issue as to whether a testator knew and approved the contents of a will. No error of principle is made out. The application otherwise seeks to raise issues of fact which are inappropriate for consideration by this Court and as to which there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the approach taken by the Full Court. Special leave is refused with costs.
Pursuant to r 41.11.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

S.M. Kiefel
12 December 2012 S.J. Gageler

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Terence David Howroyd v Richard John Howroyd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] HCASL 197
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Terence David Howroyd versus Richard John Howroyd, decided by the High Court of Australia, revolves around a dispute regarding the validity of a will. The respondent, Richard John Howroyd, applied to the Supreme Court of Tasmania for the pronouncement of a will and the grant of probate. This application was contested by the applicant, Terence David Howroyd, who argued that the testator, who had made the will, lacked testamentary capacity, did not know and approve of the will's contents, and that the will was not signed in the presence of two witnesses as required by law. The Supreme Court, presided over by Justice Wood, found in favour of the respondent and pronounced the validity of the will, ordering a grant of probate. This decision was appealed by the applicant to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, but the appeal was dismissed. The applicant then sought special leave to appeal against the decision of the Full Court to the High Court.

The legal issues before the High Court involved whether the Full Court correctly applied established legal principles in determining the validity of the will. Specifically, the applicant contended that the Full Court erred in its conclusion that the testator had testamentary capacity and knew and approved of the contents of the will. The applicant argued that the Full Court should not have dismissed the appeal based on the grounds that the concerns raised by the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will's preparation and execution had been dispelled. The High Court was tasked with reviewing whether the Full Court's decision contained any error of principle or whether the applicant had raised issues of fact that were not suitable for the High Court's consideration.

The High Court found that no error of principle was made by the Full Court. The Court determined that the Full Court had correctly assessed the evidence and was satisfied that the concerns regarding the will's validity were adequately addressed. The High Court observed that the issues raised by the applicant were matters of fact that the Full Court had considered and resolved appropriately. The High Court concluded that the Full Court's approach was sound and there was no basis for doubting the correctness of its decision. Therefore, the application for special leave to appeal was refused, and the High Court ordered that the costs of the application be paid by the applicant.

Orders