Landmark Will Dispute Cases in Queensland and Lessons for Executors and Beneficiaries

Disclaimer — This article is of a general nature only and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Each will dispute turns on its own unique facts. Executors and beneficiaries should obtain specific legal advice from a licensed Queensland solicitor before relying on any case law.

Will disputes are far from new in Queensland. For decades, the Supreme Court of Queensland has issued important decisions interpreting, challenging, and upholding wills.

Disputes over testamentary capacity, undue influence, and family provision have all produced guidance and lessons for executors and beneficiaries caught in contested estates.

This article examines several landmark Queensland will dispute cases, the legal principles they established, and the lessons executors and beneficiaries can learn from them.

Why We Care About Landmark Cases

Landmark cases are important because they:

• Help the law be applied in actual disputes
• Guide lawyers, executors, and families
• Establish principles about capacity, undue influence, and fairness
• Provide a basis for deciding new cases in lower courts

Studying these cases helps executors and beneficiaries better anticipate risks, obligations, and likely outcomes.

Top Landmark Will Dispute Cases in Queensland

1. Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 (applied in Qld)

An English case, but still the foundation of testamentary capacity in Queensland.

Principle: A will-maker must:

1. Understand the nature and effect of a will
2. Know the extent of their property
3. Recognise the claims of those who might expect to benefit
4. Not suffer from a mental disorder influencing decision-making

Lesson: Executors should obtain medical or solicitor notes if capacity is in doubt. Beneficiaries can challenge wills if these criteria were not met.

2. Nicholson v Knaggs (2009) 25 VR 523 (considered in Qld)

A Victorian authority often applied in Queensland undue influence cases.

Principle: To prove undue influence, coercion — not just persuasion or pressure — must be shown.

Lesson: Beneficiaries alleging undue influence must provide strong evidence. Executors should document will-making instructions to protect against claims.

3. Re Jerrard (dec’d) [2022] QSC 82

A partially burnt will was admitted to probate after forensic evidence proved the deceased did not intend to revoke it.

Principle: A damaged will can still be valid if the court is satisfied there was no intention to revoke.

Lesson: Executors must preserve damaged documents and obtain advice. Beneficiaries should not assume damage makes a will invalid.

4. Re Britt (dec’d) [2016] QSC 264

The court admitted draft emails as evidence of testamentary intention.

Principle: Section 18 of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld) allows informal documents to be accepted as wills if they represent the deceased’s intentions.

Lesson: Executors should consider digital records. Beneficiaries may rely on informal documents to uphold a will.

5. Vigolo v Bostin (2005) 221 CLR 191 (applied in Qld)

A High Court case influencing Queensland family provision disputes.

Principle: “Moral duty” is central. Courts balance testamentary freedom with obligations to provide for certain family members.

Lesson: Beneficiaries excluded from wills must show financial need. Executors should expect courts to adjust distributions where obligations were unmet.

6. Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201 (applied in Qld)

A leading High Court authority on family provision.

Principle: The test is two-stage:

1. Was adequate provision made?
2. If not, what provision should be ordered?

Lesson: Executors must carefully assess claims. Beneficiaries must prove inadequacy, not just disappointment.

Themes Across the Cases

Across these landmark decisions, several themes emerge:

• Capacity is fundamental — Wills fail without testamentary capacity.
• Undue influence is difficult to prove — Coercion is required.
• Informal wills may be valid — Courts can accept emails, notes, or recordings under s 18.
• Moral duty drives family provision — Courts adjust distributions to meet obligations.
• Executor diligence matters — Record-keeping and transparency reduce disputes.

Lessons for Executors

• Look for red flags around capacity and record concerns.
• Preserve original documents, even if damaged.
• Be transparent with beneficiaries and respond promptly.
• Consider mediation to resolve disputes.
• Seek directions from the court if uncertain.

Lessons for Beneficiaries

• Know your rights under the Succession Act 1981 (Qld).
• Collect evidence when alleging incapacity or undue influence.
• Act quickly — family provision claims must be notified within 6 months and filed within 9 months of death [1].
• Explore informal documents that may support your claim.
• Be realistic about costs and likelihood of success.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the test for testamentary capacity in Queensland?
The Banks v Goodfellow principles: understanding a will’s effect, knowing property, recognising claimants, and being free of disorders affecting judgment.

Can emails or texts be valid wills in Queensland?
Yes. Section 18 of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld) permits informal documents if they show testamentary intention.

Is undue influence easy to prove?
No. Evidence of coercion is required, not just persuasion or pressure.

How long do beneficiaries have to bring a family provision claim?
Notice must be given within 6 months, and claims filed within 9 months of death [1].

Do Queensland courts often overturn wills?
Not easily. Courts balance testamentary freedom with fairness and moral obligations to family.

Key Take-Aways

Landmark will dispute cases in Queensland offer clear lessons:

• Capacity, intention, and freedom from coercion underpin valid wills.
• Informal wills may still be accepted under s 18 if they show clear intention.
• Family provision depends on genuine financial need and moral duty.
• Executors should act diligently, transparently, and seek advice early.
• Beneficiaries must be realistic, evidence-based, and act within time limits.

Sources / References