Starr v Miller [2022] NSWCA 46

Starr v Miller [2022] NSWCA 46

The Court held that the primary judge was correct in finding the deceased had testamentary capacity at the relevant time and knew and approved of the will. The statement about Emma referred to a past dispute and was not inconsistent with the terms of the will. No suspicious circumstances were present, and the appeal was dismissed as none of the appellant's grounds were made out.

Parties
Appellant: Susan Maree Starr; First Respondent: Margo Anne Miller; Second Respondent: David Patrick Brough; Third Respondent: Bradford Frederick McInnes Stuart
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Testamentary Capacity, Knowledge and Approval of Will, Suspicious Circumstances in Probate, Contested Probate, Family Provision
Succession Law Testamentary Capacity Knowledge and Approval of Will Suspicious Circumstances in Probate Contested Probate Family Provision

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Maree Starr

Appellant

Margo Anne Miller

First Respondent

David Patrick Brough

Second Respondent

Bradford Frederick McInnes Stuart

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deceased had testamentary capacity at the time she gave instructions for and executed the will
  2. 2 Whether the deceased knew and approved of the terms of the will
  3. 3 Whether the deceased's statement about not being agreeable to one of her daughters getting any money was a reference to a testamentary gift or a separate dispute

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the primary judge was correct in finding the deceased had testamentary capacity at the relevant time and knew and approved of the will. The statement about Emma referred to a past dispute and was not inconsistent with the terms of the will. No suspicious circumstances were present, and the appeal was dismissed as none of the appellant's grounds were made out.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.