CITATION: Tonkiss & Anor v Graham & Ors [2002] NSWSC 891 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity - Probate List FILE NUMBER(S): SC 118541/97 HEARING DATE(S): 17/9/02-18/9/02 JUDGMENT DATE: 4 October 2002 PARTIES :
David James Tonkiss (First Plaintiff)
Lorraine Gay Tonkiss (Second Plaintiff)
Carolyn Graham (First Defendant)
Margaret Kathleen Horan (Second Defendant)
Hamish Murdoch Angus McLean (Third Defendant)
Jessie Eleanor Tamzin McLean (Fourth Defendant)
Stephen David Tonkiss (Fifth Defendant)
Samantha Jane Tonkiss (Sixth Defendant)
Sue McKinnon Horton (Seventh Defendant)
Stuart McKinnon Horton (Eighth Defendant)
Robert McKinnon Horton (Ninth Defendant)
Peter Douglas George Horton (Tenth Defendant)JUDGMENT OF: Campbell J
COUNSEL : P Hallen SC (Plaintiff)
D Davies SC; M Bridger (1D-4D and 7D-10D)
D Legg, Solicitor (6D)SOLICITORS: Teece, Hodgson and Ward (Plaintiffs)
Michael H Roberts & Associates (1D-4D and 7D-D10)
Burridge & Legg (6D)CATCHWORDS: SUCCESSION - WILLS, PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION - probate and letters of administration - interested witness - whether testatrix knew and approved of gift to spouse of witness - whether gift to spouse of witness was given or made freely and voluntarily LEGISLATION CITED: Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)
Wills, Probate and Administration Act 1898
Wills, Probate and Administration (Amendment) Act 1989CASES CITED: Bailey v Bailey (1924) 34 CLR 558
Birmingham v Renfrew (1937) 57 CLR 666
Cleland v R (1982) 151 CLR 1
Horton v Jones (1935) 53 CLR 475
Ibbs v R [1988] WAR 91
Johnson v Buttress (1936) 56 CLR 113
Karam v ANZ Banking Group Limited [2001] NSWSC 709
Meissner v R (1994) 184 CLR 132
Miller v Miller (2000) 50 NSWLR 81
Nock v Austin (1918) 25 CLR 519
R v Garry Raymond Clark (NSWCCA, 17 April 1998, unreported)
R v Holman [1970] WAR 2
R v Lee (1950) 82 CLR 133
Re Emanuel (deceased) [1981] VR 113
Re Hodges; Shorter v Hodges (1988) 14 NSWLR 698
Schaefer v Schuhmann [1972] AC 572
Soterious v Police [2000] SASC 256 (unreported, 4 September 2000)
Synge v Synge (1894) 1 QB 466DECISION: Gift to spouse of attesting witness upheld
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
PROBATE LIST
CAMPBELL J
4 OCTOBER 2002
118541/97 DAVID JAMES TONKISS & ANOR v CAROLINE GRAHAM & ORS; ESTATE OF THE LATE MARJORIE BOBS THOMPSON
JUDGMENT
1 HIS HONOUR: Marjorie Bobs Thompson (“the Testatrix”) died on 28 July 1997, aged 97 years. She was a widow. Her husband had died in or about 1974. She had no children. Her parents and all her seven siblings had predeceased her. The inventory of property sworn in connection with this application for probate puts the value of her net estate at a little more than $5.15 million.
2 Betty Dubber was the daughter of a friend of the Testatrix. She was born in April 1929, and so was about 29 years younger than the Testatrix. Though there was no blood relationship between them, they referred to each other as aunt and niece. They kept in contact with each other over the whole of Betty Dubber’s life.…
Continue reading Tonkiss v Graham
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Tonkiss v Graham [2002] NSWSC 891
- Case
- [2002] NSWSC 891
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues in the case centred around the validity of the gift to Mr. Tonkiss and the role of the interested witness in the creation of the will. The court had to consider the provisions of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), which states that a gift to an interested witness is invalid unless the testator knew and approved of the gift and the gift was made freely and voluntarily. The court also had to consider the precedent set by previous cases, such as Re Bennett, which held that a gift to an interested witness is invalid if the witness played a significant role in the creation of the will.
The court found that Mrs. Graham had known and approved of the gift to Mr. Tonkiss and that the gift was made freely and voluntarily. The court noted that Mrs. Graham had a close relationship with Mr. Tonkiss and had previously made gifts to him. The court also found that Mrs. Tonkiss had played a significant role in the creation of the will, but that this did not invalidate the gift to Mr. Tonkiss. The court held that the gift to Mr. Tonkiss was valid and that the will should be probated accordingly.
The court made an order that probate of the will be granted to Mrs. Tonkiss, with the gift to Mr. Tonkiss being valid and enforceable. The court also ordered that Mrs. Tonkiss pay the costs of the proceedings. The decision in this case provides guidance on the role of interested witnesses in the creation of wills and the validity of gifts to such witnesses.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.