Healey v Healey [1912] HCA 41

Healey v Healey [1912] HCA 41

The High Court, while expressing hesitation and doubt, held that it was not demonstrably wrong for the Supreme Court to accept the testimony of the attesting witnesses and find the will proved. Appellate intervention was not warranted given the opportunities the trial court had to assess credibility.

Parties
Appellant: Jane Healey; Respondents: Healey and Others (the five infant children)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 1912
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Will Forgery, Probate, Execution of Will, Standard of Appellate Review
Wills and Estates Will Forgery Probate Execution of Will Standard of Appellate Review

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

Parties

Jane Healey

Appellant

Healey and Others (the five infant children)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the signature to the will was a forgery
  2. 2 Whether the will was properly executed
  3. 3 Whether the decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania should be disturbed

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court, while expressing hesitation and doubt, held that it was not demonstrably wrong for the Supreme Court to accept the testimony of the attesting witnesses and find the will proved. Appellate intervention was not warranted given the opportunities the trial court had to assess credibility.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Respondents' costs as between solicitor and client to be paid out of the estate.