In the Estate of O'Dell [2010] NSWSC 678

In the Estate of O'Dell [2010] NSWSC 678

Although the first version was intended to form the deceased's will and revoked the 1998 will, the deceased's later alterations in the second and third versions, together with her statements to Ms Hardman, showed persistent dissatisfaction with the first version and an intention that its dispositive provisions no longer operate. The second and third versions did not themselves provide an effective dispositive scheme, but were effective under Succession Act 2006 (NSW) s 8(2)(c) to fully revoke the dispositive provisions of the first will, so the estate was to be administered on intestacy.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Probate Proceedings Concerning an Undated Holograph Will and Informal Alterations Under Succession Act 2006 (nsw) S 8 / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
The Court declared that the first version was effective to appoint the plaintiff as executrix, revoke the 1998 will and dispose of the estate, but that the second and third versions fully revoked the dispositive provisions of the first will; the estate is to be administered on intestacy and probate of the first will...
Legal Topics
['informal Wills' 'execution of Wills' 'alteration of Wills' 'revocation of Wills' 'intestacy']
['succession' 'probate and Administration'] ['informal Wills' 'execution of Wills' 'alteration of Wills' 'revocation of Wills' 'intestacy']

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

Probate Proceedings Concerning an Undated Holograph Will and Informal Alterations Under Succession Act 2006 (nsw) S 8 / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether probate of the deceased's undated will in the form of the first version should be granted despite later amendments." "Whether the first version was intended to form the deceased's will under Succession Act 2006 (NSW) s 8 despite non-compliance with s 6(1)(b)." 'Whether the second and third versions were intended to be effective testamentary alterations or revocations of the first version.' 'Whether the estate should be administered on intestacy.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the first version was intended to form the deceased's will and revoked the 1998 will, the deceased's later alterations in the second and third versions, together with her statements to Ms Hardman, showed persistent dissatisfaction with the first version and an intention that its dispositive provisions no longer operate. The second and third versions did not themselves provide an effective dispositive scheme, but were effective under Succession Act 2006 (NSW) s 8(2)(c) to fully revoke the dispositive provisions of the first will, so the estate was to be administered on intestacy.

Court Disposition

The Court declared that the first version was effective to appoint the plaintiff as executrix, revoke the 1998 will and dispose of the estate, but that the second and third versions fully revoked the dispositive provisions of the first will; the estate is to be administered on intestacy and probate of the first will...

Orders

  • ["Pursuant to section 8(2)(a) Succession Act 2006 the first version of the undated form of holograph will as set out in annexure A to the Amended Summons and more particularly identified in paragraph 12 of the reasons for judgment of His Honour Justice Slattery dated 25 June 2010 ('the first will'), executed by...