Wilson v Jones and Holliday - [1911] HCA 11

394 HIGH COURT

[1911.

[HIG H COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

CHARLES ABRAHAM WILSON

A p p e l l a n t ;

D e f e n d a n t ,

FREDERICK CHARLES JONES

a n d ̂

GEORGE HUBERT STANFIELD R e s p o n d e n t s .

HOLLIDAY

P l a i n t i f f s ,

ON A PPEAL FROM TH E SUPREM E COURT OF

NEW SOUTH WALES.

H . C. OE A.

Will — Suit fo r probate — Costs — Testamentary capacity — Caveat — Reaaonabh

1911. grounds fo r opposing grant o f probate.

S y d n e y , The appellant filed a caveat against the grant of probate of a will and three

codicils to the respondents, upon the ground th a t their testatrix was not

M a y 8, 9, ] 0.

possessed of testam entary capacity.

firiffith C .J., Barton and

O’Connor J J .In a suit brought by the respondents for probate, Street J . found that the testatrix was of testam entary capacity, and ordered the appellant to pay the costs of the suit.

Held, that the finding as to testam entary capacity was fully Justified by the evidence, tha t the appellant could not have reasonably entertained any doubt as to the testa trix ’s capacity up to the date of the second codicil, and even if he had a doubt as to her capacity to make the th ird codicil, as substantially the whole of the costs were incurred in establishing the validity of the second codicil, he was properly ordered to pay the costs of the suit.

Decision of Street J . , 5th September 1910, affirmed.

A p p e a l by the defendant from the decision of Street J.

The plaintiffs -were the executors of the will and three codicils of Sarah Wilson who died on 28th December 1909. The suit was brought for probate of the will and codicils, against which

12 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

395

the defendant, who was a son of the testatrix, had filed a caveat. R- C- op A

A similar suit was also brout^ht by the same plaintiffs against

Francis Hannah Hawker, and Lucy Rose Adelaide Mastin, who

W il s o n

had also filed a caveat subsequently to the institution of the

J o n e s .

first-mentioned suit. Both suits were heard together, probate of the will and codicils was granted to the plaintiffs, and the defend ants were ordered to pay the costs of their respective suits. The defendants in the second suit did not appeal. The appellant appealed from the decision in the first-mentioned suit upon the grounds;—(1) that his Honor was in error in holding that the testatrix at the time of the execution of the will and codicils was possessed of testamentary capacity. (2) That his Honor should have directed the appellant’s costs to be paid out…

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 Wilson v Jones and Holliday 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: [1911] HCA 11
Decision Date: 10 May 1911

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Wilson v Jones and Holliday*, the Supreme Court of Queensland considered an application for the grant of probate of the will of the late Mr. William Jones. The applicant, Mr. Wilson, sought to prove the will, while the respondents, Mr. Jones and Mr. Holliday, had lodged a caveat opposing the grant. The central dispute revolved around the testamentary capacity of the deceased at the time the will was executed.

The court was required to determine whether the deceased possessed the requisite mental capacity to understand the nature of his will and its effect, and whether the grounds for opposing the grant of probate were reasonable. Specifically, the court had to assess the evidence presented regarding the deceased's mental state and the circumstances surrounding the will's creation to ascertain if the caveat was justified.

The court found that the evidence did not establish that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity. It applied the principles established in *Banks v Goodfellow* (1870) LR 5 QB 549, which require a testator to understand the business they are engaged in, the nature and effect of the will, and to be able to comprehend and appreciate the claims of those who ought to be in the will. The court concluded that the respondents had not demonstrated reasonable grounds for opposing the grant of probate, and therefore, the caveat was dismissed.

Orders