10 Jan 2014
The court accepted the unshaken, credible evidence of the attesting witnesses and the propounder, found the testator was correctly identified and had testamentary capacity and knowledge and approval, and held the defects were typographical/clerical only; accordingly the 15 October 2005 will is validly executed and should be admitted to probate.
28 Feb 2012
Summary judgment was inappropriate because the pivotal issue of the deceased's testamentary capacity depended on the severity and effect of dementia at the time of execution, which could not be resolved on the written evidence alone and required oral testimony and assessment at trial; accordingly the defendant was entitled to unconditional leave to defend and the procedural questions (rejoinder) must be remitted to the trial judge for fresh determination.
28 Feb 2012
Summary judgment was inappropriate because credible triable issues existed on execution and, crucially, on the deceased's testamentary capacity which required assessment of the severity and impact of dementia at the time of execution by oral evidence; accordingly the defendant was to be granted unconditional leave to defend and the matter remitted for trial; leave to file the late reply/rejoinder was set aside and remitted for fresh determination by the judge.
28 Oct 2008
On the evidence, including the attesting witness's affirmation and the surrounding facts, the court found the testatrix had testamentary capacity on 9 May 1980 and validly executed the 1980 Will; the court allowed defendants to withdraw their amended defence and counterclaim with agreed costs and pronounced the 1980 Will in solemn form, ordering the plaintiff's costs of proving the 1980 Will (excluding agreed defence/counterclaim costs) to be borne by the estate on trustee basis.