SHAW v CRICHTON [1995] NSWCA 423

SHAW v CRICHTON [1995] NSWCA 423

The appellants, as propounders of the 1990 and 1991 wills, failed to prove that the deceased possessed testamentary capacity at the time of their execution. The trial judge was justified in finding that the deceased's delusional beliefs about John Crichton deprived her of the relevant capacity, precluding her ability to comprehend and appreciate the claims of those who might reasonably have had a call on her testamentary bounty. There was thus no error in pronouncing against the latter wills and granting probate to the 1988 will.

Parties
Appellant: George Thomas Shaw; Appellant: Leila Shaw; Respondent: John Crichton; Respondent: Neil Crichton
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 1995
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Testamentary Capacity, Probate, Delusions and Mental Disorders in Will Making
Wills and Estates Testamentary Capacity Probate Delusions and Mental Disorders in Will Making

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Thomas Shaw

Appellant

Leila Shaw

Appellant

John Crichton

Respondent

Neil Crichton

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deceased, Mrs Crichton, had testamentary capacity at the time of executing her 1990 and 1991 wills.
  2. 2 Whether delusional beliefs about John Crichton constituted testamentary incapacity within the meaning of Banks v Goodfellow and Timbury v Cottee.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants, as propounders of the 1990 and 1991 wills, failed to prove that the deceased possessed testamentary capacity at the time of their execution. The trial judge was justified in finding that the deceased's delusional beliefs about John Crichton deprived her of the relevant capacity, precluding her ability to comprehend and appreciate the claims of those who might reasonably have had a call on her testamentary bounty. There was thus no error in pronouncing against the latter wills and granting probate to the 1988 will.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.