Small v Phillips [2019] NSWCA 222

Small v Phillips [2019] NSWCA 222

The Court found that Mrs Phillips lacks testamentary capacity, that Anthony Small is an appropriate applicant, and that the draft will substantially reflects Mrs Phillips’ likely intentions for disposing of her estate. The Court therefore proposes to authorise the making of a statutory will pursuant to the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), subject to short minutes of orders being provided by the parties.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Hearing; Orders to Be Finalised
Outcome
Appeal allowed; proposed orders for authorisation of statutory will, details to be finalised.
Legal Topics
['statutory Wills' 'testamentary Capacity' 'disposition of Estate']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Hearing; Orders to Be Finalised

  1. 1 ['Whether the court should make an order under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) for a statutory will for Millie Phillips' "Whether the draft will reflects Millie Phillips' wishes as to the disposition of her estate"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that Mrs Phillips lacks testamentary capacity, that Anthony Small is an appropriate applicant, and that the draft will substantially reflects Mrs Phillips’ likely intentions for disposing of her estate. The Court therefore proposes to authorise the making of a statutory will pursuant to the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), subject to short minutes of orders being provided by the parties.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; proposed orders for authorisation of statutory will, details to be finalised.

Orders

  • ['Parties to bring in short minutes of orders, including a draft will, giving effect to the conclusions outlined.' 'Liberty to apply in the event of disagreement as to the proposed orders.']