Revie v Druitt [2005] NSWSC 902
The Court revoked the grant of probate of the 4 October 2001 will because the defendant, as propounder, did not satisfy the Court that the 94-year-old deceased had testamentary capacity at the time of execution. The medical and occupational therapy evidence, the Guardianship Tribunal material, the deceased's cognitive deficits and inability to reason about competing claims, and documents prepared by the defendant containing incorrect statements left substantial doubt about capacity. The undue influence claim failed because the evidence showed possible control, influence and preparation of documents, but did not prove coercion overbearing the deceased's free will. The oral contract claim...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 08 September 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Equity Division Probate Proceedings and Separate Equity Proceedings Heard Together / Application for Revocation of Grant of Probate of 4 October 2001 Will, Cross Claim for Probate in Solemn Form, and Equity Claims Including Breach of Contract, Charge and Family Provision Act Claim
- Outcome
- Grant of probate of the 4 October 2001 will revoked; letters of administration with the 30 August 1999 will annexed granted to Sandra Joan Revie; defendant's probate cross-claim dismissed; equity claims dismissed except the Family Provision Act claim, which was stayed.
- Legal Topics
- ['revocation of Probate' 'testamentary Capacity' 'undue Influence' 'oral Contract to Make Testamentary Disposition of Land' 'conveyancing Act 1919 S54 A' 'equitable Charge for Improvements' 'family Provision Act 1982']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Probate Proceedings and Separate Equity Proceedings Heard Together / Application for Revocation of Grant of Probate of 4 October 2001 Will, Cross Claim for Probate in Solemn Form, and Equity Claims Including Breach of Contract, Charge and Family Provision Act Claim
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the grant of probate of the will dated 4 October 2001 should be revoked because the deceased lacked testamentary capacity.' 'Whether execution of the will dated 4 October 2001 was procured by undue influence by the defendant.' "Whether the plaintiff's equity claim for breach of an alleged testamentary promise concerning 9 Short Street, Wentworthville was defeated by s54A of the Conveyancing Act 1919." 'Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a charge over 9 Short Street for improvements allegedly made to the property.' "What order should be made concerning the plaintiff's Family Provision Act 1982 claim after the probate determination."]
Ratio Decidendi
The Court revoked the grant of probate of the 4 October 2001 will because the defendant, as propounder, did not satisfy the Court that the 94-year-old deceased had testamentary capacity at the time of execution. The medical and occupational therapy evidence, the Guardianship Tribunal material, the deceased's cognitive deficits and inability to reason about competing claims, and documents prepared by the defendant containing incorrect statements left substantial doubt about capacity. The undue influence claim failed because the evidence showed possible control, influence and preparation of documents, but did not prove coercion overbearing the deceased's free will. The oral contract claim...
Court Disposition
Grant of probate of the 4 October 2001 will revoked; letters of administration with the 30 August 1999 will annexed granted to Sandra Joan Revie; defendant's probate cross-claim dismissed; equity claims dismissed except the Family Provision Act claim, which was stayed.
Orders
- ['The grant of probate of the will dated 4 October 2001 be revoked.' 'The defendant lodge such grant in the Registry.' 'Letters of administration with the will dated 30 August 1999 annexed of the estate of Leonard William Leslie Revelle deceased, be granted to Sandra Joan Revie, the administrator with the will...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment