NSW Caselaw
Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Lim v Lim [2023] NSWCA 84 Hearing dates: 3 November 2022 Date of orders: 1 May 2023 Decision date: 01 May 2023 Before: Bell CJ at [1] Kirk JA at [2] Griffiths AJA at [122] Decision: (1) Appeal allowed. (2) The orders of the Supreme Court made on 14 April 2022 are set aside, save for the orders dealing with costs, and in lieu thereof: (a) Declare that the original of the document dated 16 October 2019 in respect of which the Court did, on 28 September 2020, make a grant of probate in common form constitutes the last will and testament of the late Daisy Ut-Mui Lam. (b) Order that a grant of probate of that will in solemn form be made to the defendant. (3) The respondent is to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal. Catchwords: SUCCESSION — Contested probate — Testamentary capacity — Lack of knowledge and approval — Significant change in nature of will — Suggestion of hepatic encephalopathy — Dispute about deceased's hearing capacity — Dispute about deceased's ability to understand Mandarin EVIDENCE — Standard of proof — Civil cases — Principle in Briginshaw v Briginshaw — Nature and strength of evidence required to establish a fact depends on nature of fact and on context in which fact sought to be proved — No general requirement of a higher degree of satisfaction in cases of contested probate Legislation Cited: Succession Act 2006 (NSW), Ch 3 Cases Cited: Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Carr v Homersham (2018) 97 NSWLR 328; [2018] NSWCA 65 Croft v Sanders [2019] NSWCA 303 d'Apice v Gutkovich – Estate of Abraham (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 1333 Dickman v Holley [2013] NSWSC 18 Kantor v Vosahlo [2004] VSCA 235 King v Hudson [2009] NSWSC 1013 Lewis v Lewis (2021) 105 NSWLR 487 Mekhail v Hana [2019] NSWCA 197 Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170; [1992] HCA 66 Nock v Austin (1918) 25 CLR 519; [1918] HCA 73 Qantas Airways Ltd v Gama (2008) 167 FCR 537; [2008] FCAFC 69 Re Estate of Griffith (1995) 217 ALR 284 Simon v Byford [2014] WTLR 1097; [2014] EWCA Civ 280 Tobin v Ezekiel (2012) 83 NSWLR 757; [2012] NSWCA 285 Veall v Veall (2015) 46 VR 123; [2015] VSCA 60 Worth v Clasohm (1952) 86 CLR 439 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Sony Ton Yew Lim (Appellant)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate