ContestedProbate:WhenReadingOverisNotEnough-TheHow,WhatandWhen KnowledgeandApprovalinEstateLitigation
By AngelaCornford-Scott Cornford-ScottLawyersThereappearstobeanincreasingnumberofwilldisputes,particularlyinvolvingsituations wherethereisaquestionaroundthecircumstancessurroundingtheinstructionsforand executionofthewill.
Thecreationoftestamentaryandenduringdocumentswhichmightbenefitonepersonover andaboveothers,usuallyresultinallegationsthatthepersonwasinfluencedintomaking thedocuments,orthattheydidsimplynotunderstandorapproveofthetermsofthe documents.
Asadvisers,itisimportantforustounderstandwhatcauseofactionarisesfromsuch circumstancesandwhethertheallegationsofinvalidityarebasedonincapacity,wantof knowledgeandapprovalorundueinfluence.Thispaperfocusesonissuesarisingwherethe claimisbasedonwantofknowledgeandapproval.
Whatisknowledgeandapproval
KnowledgeandapprovalwasdescribedbyMcMillanJinVukoticvVukotic(2013)12ASTLR knowthesubstantive
ThehistoricalprinciplewasenunciatedbyBreretonJinTobinvEzekiel,EstateofLily Ezekiel[2011]NSWSC81asfollows-
"Inmyview,however,(1)theconceptof"knowledgeandapproval"isconcernedwiththe contentsofthewill,andwhethertheyexpressthetestator'sintention,andnotwiththe processbywhichthetestamentaryintentionwasformed;(2)anyrelevantsuspicionmustbe onethatcastsdoubtonwhetherthetestatorknewandapprovedthecontents,andmust relatetothepreparationandexecutionofthewill,and(3)suspicionoffraudorundue influencedoesnotattractthe"suspiciouscircumstances"doctrine,thosebeingaffirmative defenceswhichassumethatthetestatorknewandapprovedthecontents(inthesensethat heorsheintendedtomakeawillintheforminwhichitwasmade)butchallengehowthat intentionwasprocured.
Thattheconceptof"knowledgeandapproval"isconcernedwiththecontentsofthewill,and thattherelevantsuspicionmustbeonethattheydonotaccordwiththetestator'sintention, appearsfrommanyauthoritativestatementsofwhataproponentmustprovewhen suspiciouscircumstancesareraised.InAttervAtkinson(1869)LR1P&D665,Lord Penzancesaid(at668)thatwherethemakerofawilltakesalargebenefit"Yououghttobe well-satisfied,fromevidence,calculatedtoexcludealldoubt,thattheTestatornotonly
InFullervStrum[2002]1,ChadwickLJstatedat[65]:
-redolentofmoralityasitnow seemstobe-isnottobetakenbythecourtasalicencetorefuseprobatetoadocumentof whichitdisapproves,whetherthatdisapprovalstemsfromthecircumstancesinwhichthe documentwasexecutedasawillorwhetheritstemsfromthecontentsofthedocument. Thequestionisnotwhetherthecourtapprovesofthecircumstancesinwhichthedocument wasexecutedoritscontents.Thequestioniswhetherthecourtissatisfiedthecontent [emphasisadded]Thatisnot, ofcourse,tosuggestthatthecircumstancesofexecutionorthecontentsmaynot,inthe particularcase,beofthegreatestmaterialityinreachingaconclusionwhetherornotthe testatordidknowandapproveofthecontentsofthedocument-anddidintendthatthey shouldhavetestamentaryeffect.Buttheirimportanceisevidential
However,thequestionastowhetherknowledgeandapprovalsimplymeansthatthewill makerunderstoodthecontentsofthewillorwhetheritrequiresthatthewillmaker understoodthatthewillactuallygaveeffecttotheirintentionshasbeenfurtherdeveloped.
At[47]ofTobinvEzekiel2MeagherJAreferredtotheevidencethatmightbenecessaryto provethetestator's"actualknowledgeofthecontentsofthewill",butwentontostatethatit tatorknewthecontentsofthewilland appreciatedtheeffectofwhatheorshewasdoingsothatitcanbesaidthatthewill containstherealintentionandreflectsthetruewillofthetestator(emphasisadded).
JusticeRobbinHobhousevMacarthur-Onslow[2016]NSWSC1831,onreflectinguponthe commentsmadebyMeagherJAinTobinvEzekiel3
whetherbyaddingthewords"andappreciatedtheeffectofwhatheorshewasdoingsothat itcanbesaidthatthewillcontainstherealintentionandreflectsthetruewillofthetestator" (emphasisadded),MeagherJAintendedtorecognisethepossibilitythatmereknowledgeof thecontentsofthewillmightnotalwaysbesufficienttoestablishthatthetestatorknewwhat heorshewasdoing,sothatthewillmaynotcontaintherealintentionandreflectthetrue
Ifitisthecasethatknowledgeandapprovalnotonlyrequiresthewillmakertounderstand thecontentsofthewillbutalsothatthewillreflectstheintentionofthewillmaker,thenthis wouldappeartoalsorequireadeterminationastowhatthoseintentionswereasreflectedin theirinstructions,andwhetherthewillinfactachievesthewillmakerintendedtoachieve.
Ofcourse,afailureofthewilltoreflectthetrueintentionsofawillmakercanbeaddressed inarectificationapplication.Butthatisnotthecircumstancewhichariseswherethereisa questionastowhetherthewillmakeractuallycomprehendedwhatthewillachievedbefore signingit.
Basicprinciples
Thebasicprincipleisthatthedueexecutionofawillcreatesapresumptionthatthewill makerknewandapprovedofthecontentsofthewill.Thispresumptioncanbedisplacedby suspiciouscircumstances,whichgiverisetoaconcernregardingthecreationofthewill.
Thepropounderofthewillisrequiredtoestablishonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatthewill makerdidknowandapproveofthecontentsofthewillanddisplacethesuspicious circumstances.
Thepresumptionandshiftingevidentialonusthatapplytoproofofknowledgeandapproval wereexplainedbyIsaacsJinNockvAustinatpage528:
1.
provisions
oftheinstrumentmaynothavebeenfullyknowntoandapprovedbythetestator,the mereproofofhiscapacityandofthefactofdueexecutionoftheinstrumentcreatesan assumptionthatheknewofandassentstoitscontents.
2.Whereanysuchsuspiciouscircumstancesexist,theassumptiondoesnotarise,andthe proponentshavetheburdenofremovingthesuspicionbyprovingaffirmativelyclearand satisfactoryproofthatthetestatorknewandapprovedofthecontentsofthedocument.
3.Ifinsuchacasetheconscienceofthetribunal,whosefunctionitistodeterminethefact uponacarefulandaccurateconsiderationofalltheevidenceonbothsides,isnot judiciallysatisfiedthatthedocumentdoescontaintherealintentionofthetestator,the courtisboundtopronounceitsopinionthattheinstrumentisnotentitledtoprobate.
4.Thecircumstancethatapartywhotakesabenefitwroteorpreparedthewillisonewhich shouldgenerallyarousesuspicionandcallforthevigilantandanxiousexaminationby thewill.
5.Buttheruledoesnotgofurtherthanrequiringvigilanceandseeingthatthecaseisfully approved.Itdoesnotintroduceadisqualification.
6.Nordoestherulerequireasamatteroflawanyparticularspeciesofprooftosatisfythe owners.
7.
whichfraudordishonestymaybereliedonwithoutdistinctlycharging
However,allegationsofundueinfluenceorfraudaredifferent.Theymustbeprovedby thosemakingtheallegation.
Suspiciouscircumstances,onceestablished,dispensewiththepresumptionofknowledge andapprovalthatarisesfromdueexecutionofaprimafacierationalwill,soastocastonthe proponenttheonusofremovingthesuspicionandproving,byclearandaffirmativeproof, thatthetestatorknewandapprovedthecontentsofthewill.Undueinfluenceandfraud, however,areaffirmativedefences,whichassumethatthetestatorknewandapprovedthe willintherelevantsensebutassertthatsuchknowledgeandapprovalwasimproperly procured-eitherbyfraud,orbyundueinfluence-inrespectofwhichtheopponentbears theonusofproof.Havingfailedtoestablishundueinfluence,thedaughterscannotbya
side-windcasttheonusofproofofknowledgeandapprovalonthesonsbyraisinga suspicionofundueinfluence."4
InReFenwick,Deceased[1972]VR646,MenhennittJrepeatedthewell-establishedrules. Hesaid-
"Istatethefollowingrelevantrulesorprincipleswhichappeartometobeestablishedbythe authorities:-
1.Thedueexecutionofawillraisesapresumptionthatthetestatorknewandapprovedof itscontents:BarryvButlin[1838]EngR1056;(1838)2MooPC480;12ER1089;Re Horrocks;TaylorvKershaw,[1939]P198,atp.216;[1939]1AllER579.
2.Inanappropriatecase,probatemaybegrantedinrespectofportiononlyofadocument executedasawill,omittingotherportionswhere,forexample,byfraud,mistakeor inadvertencetherehasbeenincludedintheinstrumentwordswhichintruthwerenotpartof thewillofthetestator:OsbornevSmith[1960]HCA89;(1960)105CLR153;[1961]ALR 831;ReDuane(1862)2SwandTr590;164ER1127;FultonvAndrew(1875)LR7HL448; [1874-80]AllERRep1240;RhodesvRhodes(1882)7AppCas192,atp.198,andRe Hemburrow,deceased,[1969]VicRp98;[1969]VR764.
3.Whilstprobatemaybegrantedinanappropriatecasewithwordsomittedfromawill,itis notpermissibletograntprobatewithwordsadded:ReHorrocks;TaylorvKershaw,supra, andReHemburrow,deceased,supra,althoughthislast-mentionedruleisqualifiedbythe rulesappliedinReTait,deceased,[1957]VicRp57;[1957]VR405;[1957]ALR862.
4.Theonusisonthosewhoseektohaveprobategrantedwithwordsomittedtorebutthe presumptionofknowledgeandapprovalofthosewordswhicharisesfromthedueexecution ofthewill.ItisstatedinWilliamsandMortimer,Executors,AdministratorsandProbate,atp. 158:"Butwherethewillwasnotreadovertothetestatorandthemistakeismadein circumstancesinwhichthecourtmayomitwordsordispositions,themistakemaybe establishedonabalanceofprobabilitiesandTaylorvKershaw,[1939]P198;[1939]1All ER579,iscitedinsupport.InTaylorvKershawtheCourtofAppealusestheexpressions "strictandconvincingproof"(atp.208)andevidenceof"cogency"(atp.216),buttheCourt doesnotstatespecificallyitsconclusionastowhetherornotthewillhadbeenreadtothe testatrix,althoughitdidstate(atp.215),thattheevidenceofthesolicitorthathewouldnot havereadtherelevantprovisiontothetestatrixwas"mostunsatisfactory".InRe Hemburrow,deceased,[1969]VicRp98;[1969]VR764,Gillard,J,usestheexpressions "persuasiveevidence"and"ifitcanbeclearlyestablished"(atp.764),buthisHonourdidnot discussthepossibilityofadifferentstandardofproofbeingapplicableaccordingtowhether ornotthewillhadbeenreadbyortothetestatrix.ReDuane,supra;MorrellvMorrell(1882) 7PD68;[1881-5]AllERRep642;IntheGoodsofBoehm,[1891]P247:IntheGoodsof Schott,[1901]P190;BriscovBaillieHamilton,[1902]P234,andReSmith,deceased, [1956]NZLR593,wereallcaseswhereitwasconcludedthatthewillhadnotbeenreadby ortothetestatorandinnoneofthemwasitstated,nor,Ithink,suggested,thattheonusis higherthantheordinarycivilonus.Accordingly,Iconcludethat,whereawillhasbeenduly executedbutnotreadbyortothetestator,theonusisonthoseseekingtohaveprobate 4 TobinvEzekiel,EstateofLilyEzekiel[2011]NSWSC81at[109]
grantedwithwordsomittedtoestablishonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatthosewordswere includedbyfraud,mistakeorinadvertence.
5.Whereitisestablishedthatawillhasbeenreadbyortoatestator,thepresumptionthat thetestatorknewandapprovedofthecontentsofthewillisaverystrongoneandcanbe rebuttedonlybytheclearestevidence:GregsonvTaylor,[1917]P256,atp.261.Iagree withthestatementinWilliamsandMortimer,Executors,AdministratorsandProbate,atpp. 157,158that"itis,however,goingtoofartosaythatitmustbeestablishedbeyondalldoubt thatthewordswhichapartyseekstohaveomitteddidnotformpartofthetestator'swill",as wassaidinGregsonvTaylor,supra.TheonuswasnotputashighasthatinReHorrocks; TaylorvKershaw,supra.Further,Iagree,withrespect,withtheconclusionofLatey,J,inRe Morris,deceased,[1971]P62;[1970]1AllER1057(andfollowedbyStirling,J,inRe Phelan,deceased,[1971]3WLR888;[1971]3AllER1256,that,insofarasGuardhousev Blackburn(1866)LR1PandD109;[1861-73]AllERRep680;AttervAtkinson(1869)LR1 PandD665,andHartervHarter(1873)LR3PandD11,p.22,mayhavelaiddownarule thatwhereawillhasbeenreadbyatestator,thereisaconclusivepresumptionthatheknew andapprovedofitscontentsexceptinthecaseoffraud,laterdecisions,onwhichLatey,J, relies,qualifiedthisruleandextendedtheexceptiontoincludemistake
Testamentarycapacity
Testamentarycapacityaddresseswhetherapersoniscapableofmakingawill.The elementsoftestamentarycapacityassetoutinBanksvGoodfellow5arewellknown, requiringawillmakertounderstandtheactofmakingawill,theirassetsandtheextentof anyclaimsontheirestate.
Knowledgeandapprovaldealswithwhetherthewillmakerwascapableofactuallymaking thewillinquestion.However,clearlythewillmakermusthavetestamentarycapacityin ordertoknowandapproveofthecontentsofthewill.
Testamentarycapacityisusuallyassessedatthetimeofprovidinginstructionsforthewill. However,thereisadifferencebetweencapacityandintelligenceaclientmayhave capacitytomakedecisionsabouttheirwillbutmaynotcomprehendthesignificanceorhave clarityontheconsequencesoftheirinstructions.Soitispossiblethatapersonmay possesstestamentarycapacitybutnotbeabletounderstandandapproveofthecontentsof thewillprepared.
InPetrovskivNasev,EstateofJanakievska[2011]NSWSC1275,JusticeHallensaid-
"
Inadditiontoshowingthatthedeceasedhadtestamentarycapacity,Alek,asthe propounderofthe2004Will,mustalsoshowthatsheknewandapproveditscontents.This requirementisconceptuallydistinct,andseparate,fromtestamentarycapacity,andmustnot beconflatedwithit:HoffvAtherton[2005]WTLR99,108(perPeterGibsonLJ)and117 (perChadwickLJ);PerrinsvHolland[2009]EWHC1945at[45]perLewisonJ
ThedecisionofSullivanvGreig6alsohighlightedtherequirementforthecourttobe satisfie approvalofthedocument.
5 (1870)LR5QB549 6[2023]QSC97
Theseissuesbecomemorepronouncedinsituationswhereawillmakerhasmoderate capacity.
InHobhousevMacarthur-Onslow[2016]NSWSC1831,JusticeRobbhadtodecideonthe validityofanOctober2004WillwhichpurportedlyrevokedthatmadeinJuly1988.The relevantissuesfordeterminationbytheCourtweretestamentarycapacity,knowledgeand approvaland,ofultimatesignificance,severance.Therewasclearevidencethatthe deceasedsufferedasignificantlevelofcognitiveimpairmentbywayofdementiaofatleast volving corporateandtruststructures.
JusticeRobbstatedat[433]
testamentarycapacity,itmaynonethelessimpairtheabilityofthetestatortogive instructionsastohisorheractualtestamentaryintention,ortounderstandanyadvicegiven, ortounderstandwhetherthewordingofhisorherwillactuallyreflectstheintention.Evenin therbyreadingitor orinpart,doesnotcontaintherealintentionofthetestator
Suspiciouscircumstances Toraiseasuspicionconcerningknowledgeand
InPetrovskivNasev,EstateofJanakievska[2011]NSWSC1275,JusticeHallensetoutthe approachtodealingwithknowledgeandapprovalmatters:
Traditionally,atwostageapproachtotheevidencemaybeadoptedwhereknowledgeand approvalisinissue.Thefirststageistoaskwhetherthecircumstancesaresuchasto "excitesuspicion"onthepartofthecourt.Ifso,theburdenisonthepropounderofthewillto establishthatthedeceasedknewandapprovedthecontentsofthatwill.Ifthe circumstancesdonot"excitesuspicion",thenthecourtpresumesknowledgeandapprovalin thecaseofawillthathasbeendulyexecutedbythedeceasedwhohadtestamentary capacity.
Whenconsideringwhethercircumstancesthatexcitesuspicionexist,thecourtlooksata numberoffactorsincludingthecircumstancessurroundingthepreparationofthe propoundedwill;whetherabeneficiarywasinstrumentalinthepreparationofthe propoundedwill;theextentofthephysicalandmentalimpairment,ifany,ofthedeceased; whetherthewillinquestionconstitutesasignificantchangefromapriorwill;andwhetherthe propoundedwill,generally,seemstomaketestamentarysense.Suspicionengenderedby extraneouscircumstancesarisingsubsequenttotheexecutionofthepropoundedwillisnot areasonforrebuttingthepresumptionarisingfromthedueexecutionofawillregularonits face:InreR(dec'd[1950]2AllER117,at121.
Itisimportanttounderstandthatsuspiciouscircumstancesdoesnotgosofarasundue influence,whichrequiresthepartytoprovecoercionandthatthewillwascontraryto intentionsBoycevBunce[2015]NSWSC1924
Eachcaseisdifferent,anditmaynotalwaysraiseasuspicion.Anon-exhaustivelistwhere acircumstancemayexcitethesuspicionofthecourtinclude
-wherethepersonbenefitingunderthewilldoesnotleaveacopyofitwiththetestator
-wherethepersonwhobenefitsunderthewillarranges,orrelaysinstructions,forits preparation
-whereapersonwhobenefitsundertheWillisinapositionofinfluenceoverthetestator
-
particularlywherethesolicitorwhopreparesthewillisknowntothepersonwhobenefits underit
-wherethedispositionsmadebythewillinvolveasubstantialandunexplaineddeparture fromtestamentaryintentionsthatthetestatorhadlongadheredtoinearlierwills
-whenmistakesappearinthewillincludingbutnotlimitedtospellingofnamesandthese mistakeswouldbeseentobeunlikelytobemadebyatestator
-wheretheexistenceofthewilliskeptsecret,eitherbythetestatorortheperson benefitingunderit
Ifthecircumstancesgiverisetoasuspicion,thenthepropounderofthewillmustestablish thatthewillmakerknewandapprovedofthecontentsofthewill.
KnowledgeandApprovaldecisions
TobinvEzekiel8
Thefactsinthismatterwereasfollows:
LilyandAbrahamweremarried.AbrahampredeceasedLily.Theapplicationbroughtby2 oftheir4childrensoughtforthegrantofprobate,whichhadissuedincommonform,tobe revokedonthebasisthattherewerecircumstanceswhichraiseddoubtastowhetherLily hadknownandapprovedofthecontentsofthewillandastowhethershehadtestamentary capacity.
DraftwillswerepreparedandsenttoAbrahamandLilyundercoverofaletterdated19 November1997.ThetermsofLily'sWillwerestraightforwardandthepartiesacceptedthe willwasrationalonitsface.Thewillswereexecutedon10December1997inthepresence
home.MrWoolleygaveevidencethathereadoutloudAbraham'swillandthenLily'sWill. Hethengavethewillstoeachofthemandaskedthemtoreadthemover.MrWoolleyalso gaveanexplanationofwhatthewillssaid.MrWoolleyaskedLilyandAbrahamwhetherthey hadanyquestionsandwhetherthewillswere"okay",towhicheachrepliedinthe affirmative.AbrahamandLilythensignedthewillsandMrMusrieandMrWoolleysignedas witnesses.On16December1997MrWoolleysentsignedcopiesofthewillstoAbraham andLily.
8 [2012]NSWCA285
TheprimaryjudgewassatisfiedthatLilyknewandapprovedofthecontentsofthewill, statingat[110]and[111]:
However,Ihavealreadyexplainedwhy,inthecircumstancesofthiscase,theWillwasnot irrational,northechangeintestamentaryintentionremarkable,soastoarousesuspicion. AndithasnotbeenprovedthatthesonswereinvolvedingivinginstructionsfortheWill. Merelysourcingasolicitorandconveyingthetestatrixtothesolicitor'sofficedoesnotof itselfestablishgivinginstructionstothesolicitor,orreasontodoubtthatthecontentsofthe willaccordwiththetestator'sintention.
Moreover,thesonswereclearlynotpresentwhenMrWoolleyreadoverandexplainedthe mutualwillstoLilyandAbraham,andtheyinturnreadandexecutedthem,asMrMusrie confirmed.Absentanyquestionoffraud,thefactthatawillhasbeenreadovertoorbya capabletestatorisordinarilyconclusiveevidenceofknowledgeandapprovalofitscontents
ThePrimaryJudgeindeterminingthatLilyknewandapprovedthecontentsofthe willasoutlinedat[110]and[111]wereasfollows:
makingarrangementsandgivinginstructionsforthewill;and(2)thechangeinalong-settled intentionastodispositionoftheparents'estates.However,Ihavealreadyexplainedwhy,in thecircumstancesofthiscase,theWillwasnotirrational,northechangeintestamentary intentionremarkable,soastoarousesuspicion.Andithasnotbeenprovedthatthesons wereinvolvedingivinginstructionsfortheWill.Merelysourcingasolicitorandconveyingthe testatrixtothesolicitor'sofficedoesnotofitselfestablishgivinginstructionstothesolicitor, orreasontodoubtthatthecontentsofthewillaccordwiththetestator'sintention.
Moreover,thesonswereclearlynotpresentwhenMrWoolleyreadoverandexplainedthe mutualwillstoLilyandAbraham,andtheyinturnreadandexecutedthem,asMrMusrie confirmed.Absentanyquestionoffraud,thefactthatawillhasbeenreadovertoorbya capabletestatorisordinarilyconclusiveevidenceofknowledgeandapprovalofitscontents[ ReHodges,ShortervHodges,705;ReFenwick[1972]VR646,651-5;GregsonvTaylor [1917]P256,261;PublicTrusteevPermanentTrusteeCompanyLtd;EstateofRintoul,[4142]].
Thedecisionwasthenappealed.The anddismissedtheappealontheissueofknowledgeandapproval.Leavetoappealthe decisiontotheHighCourtwasrefused.
MeagherJAstatedat[47]asfollows:
testatorissaidtobe"themostsatisfactoryevidence"ofactualknowledgeofthecontentsof thewill:BarryvButlinat484;1091;GregsonvTaylor[1917]P256at261;ReFenwick [1972]VR646at652.Whatissufficienttodispeltherelevantdoubtorsuspicionwillvary withthecircumstancesofthecase;forexampleinWintlevNye[1959]1WLR284the relevantcircumstancesweredescribed(at291)asbeingsuchastoimpose"asheavya burdenascanbeimagined".Thosecircumstancesmayincludethementalacuityand sophisticationofthetestator,thecomplexityofthewillandtheestatebeingdisposedof,the exclusionornon-exclusionofpersonsnaturallyhavingaclaimuponthetestator,and whethertherehasbeenanopportunityinthepreparationandexecutionofthewillfor
reflectionandindependentadvice.Particularvigilanceisrequiredwhereapersonwho playedapartinthepreparationofthewilltakesasubstantialbenefitunderit.Inthose circumstancesitissaidthatsuchapersonhastheonusofshowingtherighteousnessofthe transaction:FultonvAndrewat472;TyrrellvPaintonat160.Thatrequiresthatitbe affirmativelyestablishedthatthetestatorknewthecontentsofthewillandappreciatedthe effectofwhatheorshewasdoingsothatitcanbesaidthatthewillcontainsthereal intentionandreflectsthetruewillofthetestator:TyrrellvPaintonat157,160;NockvAustin at523-524,528;FullervStrum[2001]EWCACiv1879;[2002]1WLR1097at[33];Dorev Billinghurst[2006]QCA494at[32],[42].
Inthiscontextthestatementsprescribing"vigilance"and"carefulscrutiny"andreferringto thecourtbeing"affirmativelysatisfied"astotestamentarycapacityandknowledgeand approvalarenottobeunderstoodasrequiringanymorethanthesatisfactionofthe conventionalcivilstandardofproof:seeWorthvClasohmat453.Whatsuchstatementsdo isemphasisethatthecogencyoftheevidencenecessarytodischargethatburdenwill dependonthecircumstancesofeachcaseandinparticularthesourceandnatureofany doubtorsuspicioninrelationtoeitherofthesematters:KantorvVosahloat[22],[58];Dorev Billinghurstat[44].Theyalsorecognisethatdecidingwhetheradocumentisindeeda person'slastwillisaseriousmatter,soanydecisionaboutwhetherthecivilstandardof proofissatisfiedshouldbeapproachedinaccordancewithBriginshawvBriginshaw[1938]
Thecourtstatedat[67]:
Inthelightofthisevidence,theprimaryjudgedidnoterrinconcludingthatanydoubtasto whethertheinstrumentexpressedLily'strueintentionwasremovedbythecircumstancesin whichtheWillwasreceivedandexecuted.Beforeitwassigned,LilyhadadraftoftheWill foraboutthreeweeks.Itwasreadoutaloud,thenapparentlyreadbyheranditseffectwas explained.Therewasthenanopportunitytoaskquestions.Lilyorallyacknowledgedthatits contentswere"okay"andthensignedtheWill.AlbertandMorriswerenotpresentduring thisprocessandLily'searliertelephonecalltoMrMusrieindicatedthatsheunderstoodthat shewastosignawillonthatday.
LewisvLewis.9
LeemingJAoftheNewSouthWalesCourtofAppealstatedattheoutsettheissuestobe decidedinthismatteras:
aresuspiciouscircumstances?Isitsufficienttoshowthatthetestatorknewandapproved thecontentsofthewill,ormayitbenecessarytodemonstrateknowledgeandapprovalofits effect?
Therelevantfactsofthatdecisionwereasfollows:
PamelaLewisdiedin2017leavingasherlastwill,aWilldated19December2014withtwo codicilsmadein2015.4sonsand7grandchildrensurvivedher
Herearlierwillwasdated22June2011with4codicils
9 [2021]NSWCA168
sonDavidtransferredassetsheldinthefamilycompanytovariousintervivostrusts,asa resultoftaxationadvice.
Onceherson,Peter,foundoutaboutthis,hecommencedproceedingsagainstPamelaand hercompaniestorecoverassetswhichsheandhersonDavidhadtransferredintonewtrust structures.
foursons,withasharetobe dividedequallybetweenthegrandchildren;
(b)theydealtwithcertainfundswhichhadbeengiventothesonswhichhadbeen treatedasadvancesonatestamentarybequest,and
(c)thefourthcodicilandtheclausesofthe2014willanditscodicilswhichwerenot admittedtoprobateconferredpoweronDavidtocontrolthetrusteesofthetrusts, includingwidediscretionarypowerstoaltertheotherwiseequaldistributiononthebasis ofdamagessufferedorexpensesincurredbyreasonofthelitigationwhichhad culminatedintheappointmentoftheliquidatorandthefindingsofconstructivetrust.
Theclausesdirectedtothetrustswerelengthyandcomplicated,unliketheothertermsof thewillandcodicils.Theseclauseshadappearedinthefourthcodiciltothe2011will,but wereelaborateduponinthe2014and2015documents.
Peterpropoundedthe2011willandthreeofitscodicils
Davidpropounded2014willanditscodicils
Thetrialjudgefoundprovisionsinthelaterwillandcodicilshadinsubstancebeendrafted byDavid
TrialjudgefoundthatPamelahadtestamentarycapacitybuthadnotbeenshowntohave knownandapprovedtheclausesofthe2014willanditscodicilswhichconferredpowerson David
TheprimaryjudgewasnotsatisfiedthatPamelaknewandapprovedofthedeletedclauses inthe2014willanditssecondcodicilasaresultof:
(a)theabsenceofadmissibleevidenceconcerningPamela'sinstructions
(b)theverbalandlegalcomplexityofthoseclauses,and
(c)theabsenceofanyexplanationoftheeffectofthoseclausesbyMrRickard, notwithstandingthattheywerereadoutloudtoher.
Themainissuesintheappealwere:
Whetherthe2014willhadbeenreadoutloadtoPamelawhothenexecutedit;
Whether,ifso,theprimaryJudgehaderredinfailingtofindthatshehadknownand approvedofthecontentsofthewill;
WhethertheprimaryJudgehaderredinseveringthe2014andoneofthecodicils.
Davidappealedonthefollowinggrounds:
(1)HecontendedforafindingoffactthatthesolicitorMrRickardhadreadtheentiretyof eachtestamentaryinstrumenttoPamelawhohadindicatedherapprovalbeforeexecution.
(2)Hesubmittedthattheknowledgeandapprovalrequirementwastherebysatisfied,it beingsufficientforthetestatortohaveknowledgeofandtoapprovethecontentsofthewill, itbeingnopartofthetestthatthetestatorhadknowledgeofitslegaleffect,atleastin circumstanceswherethetestatorhaddelegatedthetaskofdraftingherwilltoanother.
(3)Hesubmittedthattheprimaryjudgehaderredinseveringcl12-25fromthe2014will, andthemajorityoftheclausesofthesecondcodicil,whichcouldnotoperateindependently ofthebalanceofthewill.
Thecourtofappealnoted
ThesolicitorwhoactedforDavid,MrJohnRickard, whoprovidedthevarioustestamentaryinstrumentsexecutedbythedeceasedandwho properpracticewhen hecausedhis89-year-oldandvision-impairedclienttoexecutedocumentswhichinlarge
Davidsoughttorelyonanassertionthatassentingtoatestamentaryinstrumentafteritwas readtothetestatorissufficienttosatisfytheknowledgeandapprovalrequirement,evenina draftingthewilltoanother.
Thecourtfoundthattheinstructionsforthepreparationofthe2014willandcodicilscame fromDavid,thesonwhostoodtobenefitandthisgaverisetosuspiciouscircumstances enlivening testamentary capacityandknewandapprovedofthecontentsofthewill.
thatIdonotacceptthatacapabletestatorwhosewillisreadout loudtohimorherandwhothenexecutesitistakentohaveknownandapprovedofit
LeemingJAconsideredthatwhileitmaynotbethecaseineverycircumstance,knowledge andapprovalmayinevitablyrequirethewillmakertounderstandtheeffectofthewill.
Itisnotthelawthatavalidtestamentarydispositioniseffectedbyacapabletestator acceptingwhatisputforwardbyanother,ifthetestatordoesnothimselforherself understanditsgeneraltenor.Theremaybeexceptionstothatrule,butthatdoesnotdetract fromtherule.Ofcourseinmostcasesknowledgeandapprovalwillbepresumed,butinthe casesofpresentrelevance,wherethepropounderneedstoestablishknowledgeand approval,whyevershouldanexceptionderivingfromthehistoricallimitationsofthepower ofaprobatecourttorectifymistakesgiverisetoanevidentiarytrumpenablingmere knowledgeandapprovalofthecontentsofawilltodischargetheburdenofproofinevery caseofsuspiciouscircumstances,howeverslightorgravethoughthosecircumstancesbe?
ThusareviewofthedecisionsbothpriorandsubsequenttoTobinvEzekieldisclosesno soundbasistodepartfromthestatementthatincaseswhereapersonwhoplaysapartin thepreparationofawillandtakesasubstantialbenefittoexcludethepossibilitythatitmay benecessary,inordertoestabli
thecontentsofthewillandappreciatedtheeffectofwhatheorshewasdoingsothatitcan onlyqualificationwhichIwouldadd,andIdosoonlyoutofanabundanceofcaution,isthat willdependonthedegreetowhichthecircumstancesaresuspicious,thesophisticationof
thetestator,thecomplexityofthewillandtheotherfactsofthecase.ButIcannotaccept isinvariablysufficienttodischargetheonusapropounderbearsinsuchacase.
Nothingintheforegoingrequiresapreciselegalunderstandingofthewill.Indeed,Ivery notadmittedtoprobatehadapreciselegalunderstandingofallaspectsofwhatwas involved.Itwillbesufficientifthetestatorisshowntoknowandapprovethegravamenofthe will.Inthepresentcase,whatwasinvolvedwasanappreciationthattheestablishmentof thevarioustrust
upbyherandGeoffrey,thatthedistributionofthoseassetsturnedondecisionsmadebythe trustee,thatherwillgaveDavidthecontrolofthetrustee,andthatitwasopentohiminthe exerciseofthepowersofthetrusteetoensurethathisbrothersreceivednoneofthe propertyheldontrusttherebydepartingfromherconsistentlymaintainedintentionforthem toshareequally.Thatis,essentially,whattheprimaryjudgeheldat[420]and[421]Pamela didnotappreciate10
SullivanvGreig11
Thefactsofthismatterwereasfollows:
Theapplicantwasthedaughter,andonlychildofthedeceased,JanitaRoseSullivan.The deceaseddiedon16November2021.
Underawilldated15November2021thedeceasedappointedherfriend,Val,the respondentas
TheapplicantchallengedtheWillontwobases:
(b)thedeceasedlackedtestamentarycapacityatthetimetheWillwasexecuted.
Althoughtheissueofknowledgeanapprovalwasancillary,itisinterestingtonotehowthat issuecanbecomeintertwinedwiththeissueoftestamentarycapacity.
Thedeceasedwassufferingfrommetastaticcancer,whichhadspreadtoatumouronher brainandtherewasevidenceofneurologicaldeficienciesandgeneralconfusionin November2021.
Thedeceasedwastoldshehadlessthanamonthtolive.Shehadbeensayingtoher friend,MsSaundersforoveramonththatsheneededtoputawillinplace,but unfortunately,anurgentappointmentcouldnotbemadewiththelocalsolicitorsorthePublic Trustee,asbothhadwaitingtimes.MsSaundersthenarrangedtobuyawillkitandthe evidencewasthatsheandthedeceasedreadittogetherandthedeceasedtoldherthatshe wantedtherespondenttobethesoleexecutorandbeneficiary.Thewillwasnotcompleted atthattime.Thedeceasedhadastrokeon13Novemberandwassubsequentlyinhospital
andaskedMsSaunderstopickupthewillandbringittoher,givingclearinstructionsasto wheretofindthewill.MsSaunderscompletedthewill,some10daysaftertheinitial discussion,basedonherrecollectionoftheconversationswiththedeceased.Shealso
animals.ThewillwassignedbythedeceasedthefollowingdaywhenMsSaundersbrought ittothehospital.
MsSaundersgaveevidenceasfollows:
(cremation)andbodyorgandonations(no)
MsBu tothedeceased.MsBurkefurthergaveevidencethat:
listentowhat[MsSaunders]
MsBurkegaveevidencethatMsSaundersgavethedeceasedapenandthatthedeceased signedtheinstructionsabouttheanimalsfirstandthentheWill.MsSaundersandMsBurke thensignedbothdocumentsaswitnesses.MsBurkegaveevidencethatthedeceased seemedrelievedwhenthewillwassigned.
FollowingthesigningoftheWill,MsSaundersretainedtheoriginaloftheWillandthe originaloftheanimalinstructionssotheywouldnotbelost.
TheCourtnotedthatinadditiontobeingsatisfiedofbothdueexecutionandcapacityofthe deceased,itmustalsobesatisfiedthatthedeceasedknewandapprovedofthecontentsof thewill.
TheCourtwassatisfiedofthisbecause:
(a) expressedtoMsSaunderspriorto15November2021;
(b)beforesigningtheWill,thedeceasedrepeatedthatshewantedtherespondenttobe herexecutorandbeneficiary,whichwaswhattheWillprovided;and
(c)thedeceasedsignedtheWillafteritwasreadtoher.
Summary
Itappearsfromthedecisions,thatinsomecircumstancesknowledgeandapprovalofthe contentsofthewillmightbesufficienttodischargetheburdenofproof,whereasinothers, knowledgeandapprovaloftheeffectofthetermsofthewill,willberequired.
Thiswilldependonthetypeofclientyouhaveandthelevelofvulnerabilityandcomplexity ofthewillitself.Itmaynotbeenoughtomerelyreadthewilltothewillmakertosatisfythe knowledgeandapprovalrequirement.
Consequencesoffailuretoproveknowledgeandapproval,includingwillinvalidity andseverance
Ifthecourtisnotsatisfiedthatthewillmakerfullyknewandapprovedofthetermsofthewill, thenthewillcannotbepropoundedandanypreviouswillmaytakeeffectorintestacywill follow.
Acourtcanalsodeterminethatonlypartsofthewillareinvalidandcanmakeanorder severingjustthepartofthewillwhichthecourtdetermineswasnotmadewiththefull knowledgeandapprovalofthewillmaker.ThiswasthecaseinLewisvLewis.12,wherethe courtheldthatwhilethewillmakeknewandapprovedofpartsofthewillandcodicils,there wereprovisionswhichthecourtwasnotsatisfiedsheknewandapprovedof.
Practicaltipstoassistinaddressingknowledgeandapproval
Understandingtheissueswhichariseintheconsiderationofthecourtsinthesematterscan helpinformushowtoaddressthesemattersupfront,whentakinginstructionsanddrafting willsforourclients.
Ihavesummarisedbelowsomepointswhichhavebeendrawnfromtheauthorities.
Knowyourclientandtheirlevelofunderstandingandthentailorthedocumentsandyour discussionsaccordingly.
WhereEnglishissecondorsubsequentlanguage,thenensuretheclientis capableofreadingandunderstandingthewillandifnecessary,arrangeatranslator.
Removelegalesetermswherepossible.
However,rememberthattermsthatweaslawyersconsidercommon,arenotfamiliarto manypeople,eventhosewithextensiveeducationorbusinessandcommercialexperience. So,trytousetermsandphrasesthatcanbecommonlyunderstood.Discretionary testamentarytrustscanprovidearealchallenge.Particularlywherethetermsarelongand complex.However,inmyviewitmaynotbenecessaryforthewillmakertounderstand everyprovisionofthetrust,butclearlytheymustunderstandtheconceptofthetrust,the controlmechanisms,whobenefitsandthereasonforthecreatingthetrust.
Meetwiththeclientpersonallyandpreferablyaloneatleastonce.
Takethetimetogothroughthewillandreaditwiththeclient,explainingtheprovisionsas yougo.Asktheclienttoclarifytherelevanttermswhereappropriate.
Keepdetailedfilenotesshowingthestepstakentosatisfyyourselfthattheclient understandsthetermsofthewill.Recordanyparticulardiscussionsaroundpartsofthewill todemonstratetheclientdidunderstandtheeffectofthoseclausesandimportantlythe overallmeaningandeffectofthewill.
Bealertwherethewillmakerhasprovidedinstructionsthroughorinthepresenceofanother party,orwherethenewwillisasignificantdeparturefromearlierwillsparticularlyin
12 [2021]NSWCA168
circumstanceswherethechangeissubstantiallyinfavourofthepersonwhoisorchestrating thetransaction
Bewareofredflags:
-Capacitylevelmedicationlevels,diagnosis
-Agedpersonsbutbecarefulnottodiscriminatebasedonage.
-Livingarrangementsaretheyincareandifsowhatlevelofsupportaretheyreceiving?
-Familydynamicstrytounderstandasbestyoucantheclientsrelationshipwiththe beneficiariesandfamilymembers
afraidtohavemultipleappointmentsandphonecallswiththeclienttosatisfyyourselfthat theclientdoesunderstandthecontentsandeffectofthewillandimportantlyisproviding instructionsfreefrominfluence.
Wherecapacitytomakeawillispotentiallyindoubt,takeparticularcaretogain reasonableassuranceastothetestamentarycapacityoftheclient.13Obtainadvicefromthe justifiedbythecircumstances.
Afailuretotakereasonableprecautionsandmaintainrecordscouldresultincriticismshould thewillbequestionedandacourtrequiredtomakeadeterminationofissuesrelatingtoits validity.14Ifcontemporaneousfilenotescannotbeprovidedtothecourt,itdeprivesthe courtofthebenefitofthoserecordswhicharecriticalinassistingthedetermineissuesof testamentarycapacityandknowledgeandapproval.
Further,itisimperativethatyouclearlyidentifyyourclientandtakeallappropriate precautionstoensureyouunderstandtheclientswishesandputthemintoeffectina mannerinwhichtheyunderstandandcanapprove.
IacknowledgetheassistanceofmycolleagueClaraBoddiceinthepreparationofthispaper.