15 Nov 2023
Because no cause was shown in relation to the caveat and the remaining caveator consented to withdrawal, the court discharged the caveats and made the order nisi absolute, granting probate to the named executor; costs were left to be determined on a directed timetable if not agreed.
2 May 2023
The caveator failed to adduce sufficient evidence to show the deceased lacked testamentary capacity when executing the 2021 will and failed to show good cause to sustain the caveat; consequently the Order Nisi should be made absolute while statutory and common‑law protections allow interested parties to pursue PRA or FPA claims within permitted periods.
31 Mar 2023
The court held that it has jurisdiction to discharge the order nisi and appoint a temporary administrator under s7 because the holder of an order nisi occupies a position akin to a temporary administrator and, given the allegations of undue influence and the executor's multiple conflicting roles (executor, beneficiary, trustee and company director/shareholder), independence and impartiality could not be assured; to preserve and properly manage estate assets pending substantive adjudication the order nisi was discharged and solicitor Mason Lockhart was to be appointed as temporary administrato…
30 Mar 2023
Applicants failed to show cause for a full inquiry: the will and accompanying declaration were rational on their face, the solicitor who attended certified the deceased had capacity, contemporaneous medical records contained no cognitive concerns on the date of execution, evidence did not establish undue influence and the deceased gave and maintained instructions independently; accordingly the order nisi should be made absolute.
15 Mar 2023
Because the caveat was withdrawn before the date named in the order nisi, s 61(c) Administration Act 1969 permits the order nisi to be made absolute and therefore probate in common form was properly granted to the named executors; no costs order was made between the estate and the caveator.
17 Feb 2023
The caveator met the low threshold to establish cause for a full inquiry: factual disputes over testamentary capacity and potential undue influence, coupled with the deceased's dependency and contested medical/care evidence, required probate to proceed in solemn form; accordingly the executors were directed to apply for probate in solemn form under s61(d)(ii) of the Administration Act 1969.
20 Jun 2022
Because the caveator withdrew her caveat and filed no evidence in support, in accordance with s61(c) of the Administration Act 1969 the court must make the previously issued order nisi for grant of probate absolute; no costs order was made between the parties for the caveat proceedings.
30 Sept 2021
The caveators failed to establish a tenable case that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity or was unduly influenced; contemporaneous medical records, needs assessments, and solicitor evidence showed the deceased retained sufficient capacity to make a simple will on 1 May 2018, so the low threshold to refuse making the order nisi absolute or to order solemn form was not met.
16 Jun 2021
Because the respondent did not appear and emailed confirmation that he must renounce his executorship for medical reasons, and two other executors had renounced, the Court exercised its discretion under the Administration Act 1969 to grant probate to the applicant alone and order costs payable by the estate.
17 Feb 2021
Because the respondent was given opportunity and clear directions to participate, failed to file evidence or attend, and prior procedural steps had been taken, the Court exercised its discretion to grant probate to the applicant as sole executor and to order the respondent to pay costs out of her share of the estate.