(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.’
Judges:
Tadgell J
Citations:
[1995] 2 VR 439, [1995] VicRp 64
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Australia
Citing:
Applied – Lowthorpe-Lutwidge v Lowthorpe-Lutwidge 1935
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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – Lamothe v Lamothe and Others ChD 15-Jun-2006
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Wills and Probate
Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.375069