Williams J in Sutcliffe v Harper [2025] NSWSC.

-----

FACTS

The Will gave cash gifts of $140,000 to friends and family, and left the residue 60% to the daughter and 40% to the son.

The deceased left a modest estate of $359,000, being cash and some shares. As a result, the son could expect to receive approximately $70,000 from the estate.

Importantly, the Will referred to a property that was indicated to be shared by the two children. However, this property had been sold after the Will was signed, and the proceeds used to purchase a another property (valued at $4.1million). This new property was purchased by the deceased as 'joint tenants' with her daughter. Accordingly, the property went to her daughter outright upon her death and did not form part of her estate.

This means that despite purchasing and living in a property of substantial value, the deceased in fact left a very modest estate upon her death. Whether this reflected the deceased's wishes was disputed by the children.

-----

ISSUE

The Court may make an order for further provision from an estate to an eligible person if satisfied that the Will did not make adequate provision for their '𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦'.

In making an order for provision, the Court has a wide range of factors it can consider, including:

• the claimant's relationship with the deceased;

• the provision made by the deceased during their life time;

• the size of the estate;

• the age, financial resources, earning capacity, and financial needs of the claimant;

• the character and conduct of the claimant.

-----

The claim

The son claimed a lump sum of $300,000 from the estate.

He disclosed net assets of $300,000, that he had previously earned $170,000 per year as a producer, before starting his own consulting business, and now had a fluctuating income. The Court noted that he was in good health, had the capacity to work, had no dependants, and owned his own home.

The daughter, a competing beneficiary, disclosed substantial assets and no liabilities.

The children put on conflicting evidence about the deceased's wishes and the son's relationship with his mother.

The Court noted that there were shortcomings in the son's evidence, but that he was ultimately a credible witness.

-----

OUTCOME

The Court found that the Will did not adequately provide for the son.

The Court made an order for the son to receive the whole of the residue estate, being approximately $170,000, stating that this would assist him with reducing his mortgage and monthly expenses.

The day after suffering a stroke and being partially paralysed, a mother signs a new and complex Will that is radically different to her previous Will. Her son disputes the validity of the last Will.

Davis J in 𝘚𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘯 𝘷 𝘚𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘯 [2025] QSC.

-----

FACTS

On Christmas day, the deceased was admitted to hospital for surgery to remove a blood clot in her brain. When visiting her in hospital, her children noted that she was unable to move, appeared confused, was slurring her words, and one side of her body was paralysed. The next day while still in hospital, she signed a complex Will which set up various trusts for her children.

The Will was drafted by a lawyer, but it does not appear that the lawyer had an opportunity to explain the Will to the deceased or was present when it was signed. There was no evidence as to the circumstances in which the Will was signed.

-----

ISSUE

For a Will to be valid, the Willmaker must have the necessary 'testamentary capacity' to sign the document and also have 'knowledge and approval' of the document itself.

At [62] - '... 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵, 𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸, 𝘢 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘢 𝘭𝘢𝘺 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯, 𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥, 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘢 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘬𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘷𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥'

-----

OUTCOME

The Court noted that the Will was validly signed and that there were good reasons for the way the Will was drafted.

However, based on the limited evidence before it, the Court had doubts that the deceased had the necessary capacity or knowledge and approval to sign the document.

Noting the disharmony between the family, the Court:

• Made orders to suspend the executor of the Will and appoint an independent solicitor to sort out the administrative aspects of the estate.

• Stated that the executor was open to apply for probate of the Will in solemn form*, noting that if she did not do so, then it is open for other parties to apply for probate of the prior Will.

* '𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮' 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘪𝘭𝘭, 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘳.

Mossop J in Bullock v Grant [2024] ACTSC.

-----

FACTS

The deceased left his estate to his second wife, his sister, and his youngest child. No provision was made for his two eldest children (from his first wife). The two children brought a family provision claim against the estate.

An issue raised was the payment of the deceased's superannuation to his youngest child.

The claimants subpoenaed the superannuation fund, as they wanted to know how much superannuation was received by their step-sibling.

This subpoena was objected to by the second wife, who argued that the payment of superannuation was 'irrelevant' to the proceedings as it was not an estate asset.

-----

ISSUE

By default, superannuation is generally paid directly to a person's nominated beneficiary, and so is not counted as an estate asset (although a person may decide to nominate their LPR/estate as a beneficiary if they wish).

However, the Court disagreed that the superannuation payment was irrelevant and stated that this submission to be 'clearly without substance'.

In determining a family provision claim, the Court has several factors to consider, including the competing claims for need by other beneficiaries. An award for provision from the estate to the claimants would affect the entitlements of the other beneficiaries.

At [15] - 'The age, capacities, means, and competing claims, of all of the potential beneficiaries must be taken into account and weighed with all of the other relevant factors.'

Accordingly, the superannuation received by the youngest child was found to be clearly relevant to the proceeding.

-----

OUTCOME

The Court ordered that the parties have access to the subpoenaed superannuation documents.

Further, the Court made an order for costs against the executor/second wife for her 'unreasonable' objection.

Blow CJ in White v White [2024] TASSC.

-----

FACTS

The deceased made his last Will when he was 93 years old and suffering from 'dementia, Parkinsonism, osteoarthritis in one knee, and a cardiac condition.'

The deceased's son argued that the last Will was not valid, on the basis that his father did not have testamentary capacity at the time or knowledge of approval of the Will, and therefore a prior Will should receive probate.

The deceased's stepchildren received no benefit in the prior Will, but did in the later Will.

-----

ISSUE

The Court set out some 'basic rules of thumb' for solicitors taking instructions from elderly clients to prepare a Will: (1) the client should be interviewed alone, (2) the solicitor should always consider capacity and possibility of undue influence, (3) there should be non-leading questions, and (4) the solicitor should ask the client (or their carer) whether there is any reason to be concerned about capacity.

The Court also considered the requirements for testamentary capacity set out in Banks v Goodfellow (1870).

-----

EVIDENCE

Medical evidence noted the deceased's fluctuating cognitive capacity.

Deceased's doctor at [24] - 'All I can say is that he has a background of cognitive impairment, short-term memory difficulties, that I'd like to re-emphasise that his cognitive function could vary at different times, different days, and according to his other physical co- morbidities.'

Evidence from the solicitor described the deceased's instructions to him to prepare the last Will, including to make provision for his two step-children who he had a 48-year long relationship with.

-----

OUTCOME

The Court found that the last Will was validly executed and the terms of the Will were rational. While there were understandable concerns about capacity, the Court considered that the deceased did have the necessary capacity at the time he signed the Will.

At [53] - 'Principally on the basis of the evidence of [the solicitor], I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the testator had testamentary capacity at the time when he executed the 2021 Will.'

The application was dismissed and probate of the last Will was granted.

McWilliam J in Walker v Walker [2025] ACTSC.

-----

FACTS

The deceased's last Will gave a life interest in the family home to his partner. Shortly after signing the Will, he also transferred a 50% share of the property to his partner.

The deceased's Will further provided that, once his partner dies or vacates the home, his 50% interest in the property will go to his three children (from his first marriage).

The daughter alleged that her father lacked capacity when he signed his Will and that the property transfer of 50% was procured by undue influence and/or unconscionable conduct by the deceased's partner.

-----

ISSUE

The key legal principles in determining testamentary capacity are set out in the well-known case of Banks v Goodfellow, which are summarised as:

1. They must understand the nature and effect of the Will,

2. They must understand the property that is subject of the Will, and

3. They understand moral claims of potential beneficiaries against their estate.

Quoting Dixon J at [19] - 'Before a will can be upheld it must be shown that at the time of making it the testator had sufficient mental capacity to comprehend the nature of what he was doing, and its effects; that he was able to realize the extent and character of the property he was dealing with, and to weigh the claims which naturally ought to press upon him. In order that a man should rightly understand these various matters it is essential that his mind should be free to act in a natural, regular, and ordinary manner.'

-----

EVIDENCE

The Court carefully examined the circumstances of the Will, including: the deceased's physical and cognitive decline, his age (78), medical reports, how the lawyer took instructions for the Will, the departure from the prior Will, the notes the deceased made on the draft Will, and the presence of the partner/stepmother in the drafting and signing of the Will.

The Court found that there was enough evidence to raise doubt about the deceased's testamentary capacity; however, it was ultimately satisfied that the deceased had sufficient capacity at the time he made his Will and that he was aware of its contents.

As to the property transfer, the Court did not find that there was sufficient evidence to set this transaction aside. At [114] - '... the solicitor’s involvement was sufficient to ensure that the testator acted independently... ... It was in the testator’s interests to put his affairs in order... ensuring that his wife was able to enjoy secure accommodation after he died.'

-----

OUTCOME

The Court dismissed the daughter's applications regarding validity of the Will and property transfer, but made orders for her to receive an advance of $50,000 from the estate.

Costs to be determined.

Davis J in Harrison v Cox [2024] QSC.

-----

FACTS

The deceased's Will left his $580k estate in three equal shares between his daughter and the two executors. The only significant estate asset was the deceased's home, valued at $550k.

The daughter notified the executors of a pending family provision claim, as well as concerns she had about the Will's validity.

Notwithstanding the daughter's concerns, the executors transferred the property into their personal names, essentially taking the entire estate themselves. The executors did so apparently in the belief that they could simply 'pay out' the daughter for her 1/3 share later on.

The daughter applied to have the executors removed and the appointment of an independent Administrator.

-----

ISSUE

Different states in Australia have different laws about how an estate should be administered. However, it is safe to say that an executor distributing estate assets improperly - such as transferring property to themselves contrary to the Will or while there is still time for a family provision claim to be filed - can leave themselves open to personal liability.

As to relevant considerations in removing an executor, see [51] - '... the Court must give due deference to the choice of executors and trustees made by the testator. The jurisdiction to revoke probate is one that is ultimately exercised in the interest of the due administration of the estate and the interests of the beneficiaries and creditors. The jurisdiction “is a supervisory and a protective one” and is not dependent upon a finding that the named executors are not fit and proper.'

The Court found that the transfer of the property to the two executors, leaving nothing significant in the estate for the daughter's share or to meet her family provision claim, was a serious breach of trust.

At [53] - '... to transfer the house to themselves in the face of not only the family provision application but suggestions being raised as to the validity of the will was irresponsible.'

The executors claimed that they had acted on legal advice, which the Court considered to be 'highly unlikely', and instead found that they were motivated by personal interest, rather than their obligations as executors.

-----

OUTCOME

The Court ordered that the executors be removed and an independent solicitor be appointed as Administrator for the estate.

Orders were made for the property to be transferred into the new Administrator's name and for submissions regarding costs to be filed by the parties.

Kunc J in Leverton v Predny [2024] NSWSC.

-----

FACTS

Father passed away in 2014, leaving his entire estate to his wife, who he had recently separated from. The children contested the father's Will, which resulted in them each receiving $65k, and the balance of $1.8m going to their mother.

Mother then passed away in 2022, leaving her $1.6m estate to her sister, with some gifts to grandchildren. The mother specifically excluded her children from her Will, stating that (1) they contested their father's Will to her detriment, (2) they received benefit from their father's estate already, (3) they had not let her see her grandchildren, and (4) there was no significant contact or relationship between them.

The children stated that the estrangement with their mother was due to her volatile nature, and that she was physically and verbally abusive towards them.

-----

EVIDENCE

The Court found that the estrangement was caused primarily by the mother's behaviour, which included her stomping on her son's head when he was a child and telling her children to 'f* off.'

At [44] - 'To the inexpert eye this appears to have been verging on some form of psychological disorder, but the evidence does not permit a finding to that effect and none is made.'

Further, the Court noted that both children had attempted reconciliation with their mother (to varying degrees).

As to the specific exclusion in the Will, the Court stated it was not satisfied the mother had given this proper consideration, and that the basis for the exclusion (i.e. lack of contact) was not supported by evidence.

-----

OUTCOME

The Court found that adequate provision was not made for the children and ordered $250k for the son and $300k for the daughter, leaving $700k for their aunt.

Daly AsJ in Estate of Mavis Pauline Jones [2025] TASSC.

-----

FACTS

The claimant sought provision from his late mother's estate from which he received no benefit, with the entire estate going to his brother.

During the course of the hearing, the Court became aware that the claimant had not fully disclosed his financial position, as he had not disclosed his firearms, a vehicle he owned, or provided significant evidence about his wife's personal and financial circumstances.

-----

ISSUE

In family provision claims, it is important for a claimant to fully disclose their financial and personal circumstances. Failing to do so can undermine their credibility and be grounds for the Court to refuse an application for provision or make an adverse inference against them.

At [14] - 'Neither the Court nor the interested party should be required to embark upon any search for information which the applicant himself had the obligation to provide...'

In this matter, notwithstanding the Court's observation that the claimant had failed to provide full disclosure, it found that the conduct was not so significant to completely undermine his credibility or justify refusing the application entirely.

-----

OUTCOME

The Court made orders for the claimant to receive $100,000 from the estate.

-----

NOTE - this is a recent Tasmanian decision. For a Victorian decision dealing with a similar issue, see the matter of Re Janson; Gash v Ruzicka [2020] VSC.

Mossop J in the Estate of Jakov Pavic [2024] ACTSC.

-----

FACTS

Man charged with murder of his mother and convicted of manslaughter. Can he still receive an inheritance?

The Court was asked to provide 'judicial advice' as to how the estates of the man's parents were to be distributed given the man's criminal conduct. The Court considered the 'forfeiture rule'.

-----

ISSUE

The 'forfeiture rule' in short - no person can obtain a benefit from their own crime.

Example - you cannot murder your parents and then receive an inheritance from their estates.

In Victoria, murder will always result in the forfeiture rule; however, manslaughter is decided on a case-by-case basis - Edwards v State Trustees Ltd [2016] VSCA.

NSW has a different approach, in that manslaughter will always result in the forfeiture rule applying.

-----

OUTCOME

In this matter, the Court considered that the man's criminal culpability made it clear that the forfeiture rule should apply in any event.

The Court looked at the man's sentencing for the crime, which included up to eight years imprisonment and noted that he expressed no remorse.

Slattery J in Bosschieter v Howitt [2024] NSWSC.

-----

FACTS

A few months before her passing, the deceased attended the bank to transfer her life-savings to her granddaughter, being approx. $200,000. Her granddaughter accompanied her to the bank on the day.

The granddaughter stated that this was a 'spontaneous' decision by her to gift her the money, which she subsequently spent almost entirely over the next few months.

The executor (the deceased's son) stated that it had always been his mother's intention to split her assets among her children, as was reflected in the deceased's Will.

The executor argued that the transfer was procured by undue influence and/or unconscionable conduct.

-----

ISSUE

'Unconscionable conduct' summarised at [154]: “... unconscionable conduct requires the innocent party to be subject to a special disadvantage "which seriously affects the ability of the innocent party to make a judgment as to [the innocent party's] own best interests". The other party must also unconscientiously take advantage of that special disadvantage...”

'Undue influence' summarised at [160]: "... A claimant may seek to set aside a transaction by showing that another party had... a position of practical ascendency, power or dominion over the claimant who had taken a co-relative position of dependence or subjugation..."

-----

OUTCOME

The Court found that the granddaughter had taken advantage of her mother's frailty and dependence on her to cause the transfer of funds. Accordingly, orders were made for the granddaughter to repay $200,000 to the estate, plus interest.

The Court also considered the granddaughter's claim for provision against the estate, finding that she had established a case for further provision. However, the Court considered this claim against her aforementioned conduct and essentially ordered that the award for further provision be the amount she is required to repay to the estate.

Irving AsJ in Estate of Diana Noelle Whiteman [2024] VSC.

-----

FACTS

The deceased's solicitor was one of two executors of the estate. The Will provided for the plaintiff to be paid their 'usual professional fees for work done' to administer the estate.

The plaintiff decided not to charge professional fees and instead claim a lump sum commission of ~$100,000, being approx. 2% of the estate's value.

The other executor submitted that the plaintiff had done very little to administer the estate and had caused delays in the estate's administration.

-----

ISSUE

An executor can receive a commission either by

1. A clause in the Will;

2. With consent of all affected beneficiaries;

3. By order of the Court.

When claiming a commission, an executor is required to provide the affected beneficiaries with certain information 'as soon as reasonably practicable' - see s65D of the Administration and Probate Act 1958.

This information includes:

• Basis of commission being claimed;

• The method for calculation;

• Estimated value of commission; and

• The rights of beneficiaries to review the commission.

An executor who fails to provide this information is not entitled to receive a commission - see s65D(5).

The Court will consider several factors when assessing an application for commission, including: work involved to administer the estate, length of administration, size of estate, 'pains and troubles' incurred, any conflict necessarily dealt with in administration, and any delays in the estate.

-----

OUTCOME

The Court found that: the executor did not inform the beneficiaries 'as soon as reasonably practicable' about her intention to claim a commission, the information that she did provide to the beneficiaries was 'defective', and that she had acted unreasonably when dealing with the beneficiaries.

Accordingly, the Court declined to make an order for commission and the application was dismissed.

Williams J in Alessandra Hart v Gerard John Basha [2024] NSWSC.

-----

FACTS

The plaintiff and deceased had three children from their 23 year marriage. The plaintiff claimed she left her successful career to look after the children at her late ex-husband's insistence.

The plaintiff alleged her ex-husband promised her 'the bulk of his estate' when he died, provided that she did not pursue him for a property settlement following their divorce.

They divorced in 1992 and the deceased died in 2021, leaving a $2.7m estate. Two days prior to his death, the deceased made a new Will which provided little to his ex-wife.

The ex-wife sued the estate claiming that the deceased broke his promise to her (or, '... the deceased unconscionably resiled from representations...').

-----

EVIDENCE

Following their separation in 1992, the plaintiff alleged that the deceased said:--- “Don’t worry about money. I am very sick. The doctors think it’s cancer. I won’t have long left. Don’t worry about going to see a lawyer now; I will leave you everything when I’m gone.” --- “So long as you don’t bring a property settlement now, I’ll leave you everything when I die”.

The deceased then made a Will in 1992, giving the bulk of his estate to his soon-to-be ex-wife.

A further Will was made in 1994, also giving the bulk of his estate to his ex-wife.

However, a final Will was made in 2021 which provided little to her.

-----

OUTCOME

The Court was not persuaded that the deceased had broken a promise to the plaintiff which she could rely upon, noting that there had been many discussions between them in the years following their separation, and that the plaintiff would have been aware as early as 1993 that she could no longer expect to receive benefit from his estate.

The plaintiff also brought a back up claim, seeking further provision from the estate, which she was eligible to do as a 'former spouse' of the deceased.

Noting the contributions she made to the relationship and there having been no family property settlement following their divorce, the Court awarded the plaintiff the sum of $600,000 from her ex-husband's estate.

Meek J in Bowers v Matthews [2024] NSWSC

-----

FACTS

Plaintiff was the de facto partner of the deceased. She brought a claim for provision which settled in April 2024; however, she died in June 2024, before final orders could be obtained.

-----

ISSUE

The Court noted that under the relevant NSW legislation, there was nothing to support the Court making provision for an applicant who died before their claim was determined.

However, under NSW legislation, a Court proceeding does not necessarily come to an end because a party dies or becomes bankrupt, provided the 'cause of action' survives.

-----

OUTCOME

In this matter, the Court determined that the claim for provision was 'personal' to the applicant and not 'transmissible'.

The de facto's 'cause of action' did not survive her death and, therefore, the proceeding and her claim for provision were terminated.

Allen KC DCJ in Allan v Dobbins [2024] QDC 169.

-----

FACTS

The deceased left assets of approximately $1.1million.

The deceased's eldest son was excluded from the Will, which stated:

"I declare that I have not made a provision in this my Will for [the applicant] because over a number of years, my late wife and I were in partnership with him and were involved in protracted legal proceedings with him to the extent that I believe he has received more than his fair share of my estate during my lifetime. Although my late wife and I were in partnership with my son for many years, it is my opinion that he did not contribute to the increase in value of my estate, but to the decrease in value."

The son then brought a family provision claim against his father's estate.

-----

OUTCOME

The Court found the applicant to have financial need. However, the Court ultimately determined that the applicant failed to establish that he should receive provision from the estate, taking into account his lengthy estrangement from his father.

The Court also gave particular weight to an incident in which the applicant threatened the deceased with a shotgun many years earlier, which had a significant impact on the deceased and his late wife.

The son's application was dismissed.

Re Estate of TCW (a pseudonym) [2024] VSC.

-----

FACTS

The deceased passed away and a beneficiary in their Will was convicted of manslaughter.

The executor sought judicial advice from the Court, as to whether the beneficiary had forfeited their right under the deceased's Will.

-----

ISSUE

The Court was asked to consider the 'forfeiture rule', the legal principle that no person can obtain or enforce any rights resulting to them by their own crime.

A particular question for the Court was whether 'manslaughter' automatically disqualifies someone, as opposed to 'murder.'

The decision quoted Whelan JA as to the relevant rules in Victoria - 'Cases of murder are straightforward and would always result in the offender being precluded. Cases of manslaughter have to be considered on a case-by-case basis.'

-----

OUTCOME

In this matter, the Court found that the beneficiary should not receive any benefit under the Will.

In reaching its decision, the Court referred to confidential material in considering the beneficiary's criminal culpability.