Verrall v Jackson
Case
•
[2006] QSC 309
•23 October 2006
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Verrall v Jackson [2006] QSC 309
[2006] QSC 309
23 October 2006
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Verrall v Jackson involved the interpretation and application of a testator's will, specifically whether the later of two wills should be granted probate. The parties in dispute were Laurelle Irene Verrall, the de facto partner of the deceased, Shane Michael Jackson, and the executors of Jackson's estate, who were the defendants in this case. The legal issue at the heart of the dispute was whether the later will, which named Verrall as the beneficiary, was completed by her after Jackson's death or while he was still alive, and if it should be granted probate.
The court had to determine whether Verrall filled out the later will on her own after Jackson's death or whether she did so while he was alive and on his instruction. Furthermore, the court needed to decide if the gift to Verrall was void because she was an attesting witness to the will, and if a gift over would apply in the event she predeceased Jackson. The court also had to consider whether the rule in Jones v Westcomb would activate the gift over and if the failed gift would pass according to the intestacy rules.
The court held that the later will should be granted probate to Verrall, but that the gift to her was void because she was an attesting witness. The court further found that the gift over did not apply, and that there was an intestacy as to the residue of the estate. Consequently, the court ordered that a grant of probate of the later will be issued to Verrall, subject to the formal requirements of the Registrar. The court also declared that the gift to Verrall was void, and that there was an intestacy as to the residue of the estate. The orders as to costs were that the plaintiff executrix’s costs of and incidental to the claim and the counterclaim be paid out of the estate on the indemnity basis, that the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the claim and the counterclaim be paid out of the estate on the standard basis, and that the intervener’s costs of and incidental to the claim and the counterclaim be paid out of the estate on the standard basis.
The court had to determine whether Verrall filled out the later will on her own after Jackson's death or whether she did so while he was alive and on his instruction. Furthermore, the court needed to decide if the gift to Verrall was void because she was an attesting witness to the will, and if a gift over would apply in the event she predeceased Jackson. The court also had to consider whether the rule in Jones v Westcomb would activate the gift over and if the failed gift would pass according to the intestacy rules.
The court held that the later will should be granted probate to Verrall, but that the gift to her was void because she was an attesting witness. The court further found that the gift over did not apply, and that there was an intestacy as to the residue of the estate. Consequently, the court ordered that a grant of probate of the later will be issued to Verrall, subject to the formal requirements of the Registrar. The court also declared that the gift to Verrall was void, and that there was an intestacy as to the residue of the estate. The orders as to costs were that the plaintiff executrix’s costs of and incidental to the claim and the counterclaim be paid out of the estate on the indemnity basis, that the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the claim and the counterclaim be paid out of the estate on the standard basis, and that the intervener’s costs of and incidental to the claim and the counterclaim be paid out of the estate on the standard basis.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Succession Law
Legal Concepts
-
Testamentary Instruments
-
Probate
-
Gift Over
-
Intestate Succession
-
Attesting Witness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Verrall v Jackson [2006] QSC 309
Most Recent Citation
In the Estate of Giuseppe Pellegrino (deceased) [2025] ACTSC 421
Cases Citing This Decision
10
Savage v Savage
[2023] QSC 280
Sadleir v Kähler
[2018] QSC 67
The Trust Company Limited v Gibson
[2012] QSC 183
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
1
Vernon v Watson; Estate Clarice Isabel Quigley Dec'd
[2002] NSWSC 600
Aboody v Ryan
[2012] NSWCA 395
Schwanke v Alexakis; Camilleri v Alexakis
[2024] NSWCA 118