Van Heerden v Picton and Others (3793/2020) [2021] ZAKZPHC 93 (19 November 2021)

Van Heerden v Picton and Others (3793/2020) [2021] ZAKZPHC 93 (19 November 2021)

The court found that the first respondent completed the final schedule attached to the will, thereby triggering the disqualification provisions of section 4A of the Wills Act. The respondents failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that there was no fraud or undue influence in the execution of the will. The allocation of assets in the final schedule did not reflect the original preferences of the beneficiaries and awarded a disproportionate share of valuable assets to the first respondent. The court held that the first respondent is only entitled to receive a benefit from the estate up to the value of her intestate share, as she would have been an intestate...

Citation
[2021] ZAKZPHC 93
Parties
Applicant: Brittany Van Heerden; First Respondent: Bridget Alexa Picton; Second Respondent: Barry Mark Picton N.O.; Third Respondent: Gareth Joseph Van Heerden; Fourth Respondent: The Master of the High Court
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 November 2021
Case Number
3793/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Order
Outcome
Application granted in part. First respondent limited to intestate share; second respondent disqualified from benefit under the will.
Judges
Mossop AJ
Legal Topics
Wills Act Section 4a, Testamentary Capacity, Undue Influence, Intestate Succession, Executor Disqualification
Family and Children Civil Procedure Wills Act Section 4a Testamentary Capacity Undue Influence Intestate Succession Executor Disqualification

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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brittany Van Heerden

Applicant

Bridget Alexa Picton

First Respondent

Barry Mark Picton N.O.

Second Respondent

Gareth Joseph Van Heerden

Third Respondent

The Master of the High Court

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first and second respondents are disqualified from receiving any benefit from the will of the late Leonard Ernest van Heerden under section 4A of the Wills Act.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent is entitled to inherit only up to her intestate share.
  3. 3 Whether the second respondent may receive any benefit from the will, including appointment as executor, given the finding of fraud or undue influence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent completed the final schedule attached to the will, thereby triggering the disqualification provisions of section 4A of the Wills Act. The respondents failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that there was no fraud or undue influence in the execution of the will. The allocation of assets in the final schedule did not reflect the original preferences of the beneficiaries and awarded a disproportionate share of valuable assets to the first respondent. The court held that the first respondent is only entitled to receive a benefit from the estate up to the value of her intestate share, as she would have been an intestate...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part. First respondent limited to intestate share; second respondent disqualified from benefit under the will.

Orders

  • It is declared that the first respondent is a person who would have been entitled to inherit from the late Leonard Ernest van Heerden had he died intestate.
  • The first respondent is only entitled to receive a benefit from the estate of the late Leonard Ernest van Heerden that does not exceed the value of the share to which she would have been entitled in terms of the law relating to intestate succession.