Lewis v Watson [2025] QSC 35

In a recent Queensland Supreme Court decision, the Court has reinforced the stringent requirements for informal wills under section 18 of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld), dismissing an application to recognise a handwritten letter as a testamentary document.

Case Background

Following the death of Stewart Gray in 2024, his sister (the respondent) obtained letters of administration based on his 1989 formal will, which left his estate to his father. However, Keelan Lewis (the applicant), who had no familial relation to Gray, contested this arrangement. Lewis claimed that a 1991 handwritten letter addressed to his mother, Sharon Mitchell, constituted an informal will under section 18 of the Act, naming him as a beneficiary.

The Contested Document

The applicant relied on phrases in the letter such as “inherit almost half a million dollars” and expressions of familial affection to argue that Gray intended to leave wealth to Sharon and her son. The respondent countered that the document was merely a personal letter with no testamentary character, emphasising that Gray’s 1989 will remained valid and operative.

Judicial Analysis

The Court meticulously examined the 1991 document for evidence of testamentary intent, finding it critically lacking in several respects:

• The document contained no dispositive language typically found in wills
• It lacked essential elements such as revocation clauses or executor appointment
• The document’s character resembled a love letter rather than a legal instrument
• References to wealth were aspirational rather than binding declarations

Significantly, the Court noted that Gray’s action in 2020 of entrusting his 1989 will to his father reinforced his intent for that document to remain his valid will.

Application of Legal Principles

The judgement affirmed key principles regarding informal wills:

1. As established in Lindsay v McGrath [2016], courts require evidence of settled testamentary intent, not merely aspirational statements
2. While section 18 allows for informal documents to be recognised as wills, they must still demonstrate clear dispositive intent (Re Nichol [2017])
3. The purpose of the document is central to its characterisation—emotional letters inherently lack testamentary character without explicit instructions (In The Estate of Quinn [2019])
4. Documents must reflect a final, unalterable decision to distribute assets (Re Carrigan [2018])

Outcome

The Court dismissed the application and awarded costs to the respondent, reinforcing the judiciary’s emphasis on substance and intent over technical compliance, whilst maintaining essential safeguards against speculative claims.

Practical Implications

This case serves as a reminder for practitioners that while section 18 provides flexibility in recognising informal wills, courts will continue to scrutinise such documents rigorously. Clear testamentary language and demonstrable intent remain paramount, regardless of the document’s form.