References: [1995] 2 VR 439
Coram: Tadgell J
Ratio: (Supreme Court of Victoria) Tadgell J said: ‘The very existence of a revocation clause in a will is, however, prima facie solemnly eloquent of the testator’s intention. Evidence sufficient to rebut it must be clear and unequivocal. Nevertheless, if there is receivable evidence which is sufficient to rebut it, there can be no doubt that it is the duty of a court of probate to give effect to it.’
Jurisdiction: Australia
This case cites:
- Applied – Lowthorpe-Lutwidge v Lowthorpe-Lutwidge ([1935] P 151)
The burden that lies on the party seeking to prevent an express clause of revocation in a will from having the effect that would follow from the plain meaning of the words used. Langton J said: ‘It is a heavy burden upon a plaintiff who comes into . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Lamothe v Lamothe and Others ChD (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 1387 (Ch))
The deceased had made a will in England but later made a will in Dominica revoking all other wills. After the first death, probate of the first will was taken out in ignorance of the second. The claimant, still in ignorance of the second will, took . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 09 June 2018
Ref: 375069
The post Re Barker: Nemes v Baker: 1995 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.