This case concerns the validity of a 2017 will made by Kevin Chambers, who died in 2023. The two-page DIY will was signed by Kevin on page one, which contained all the operative clauses. These appointed his grandson executor, revoked prior wills, and left his entire estate to his daughter Cherie. No clauses appeared on page two, where two witnesses signed but Kevin did not. The Probate Registrar requisitioned the will as not duly executed.
Cherie applied for court orders dispensing with due execution requirements so the will could be admitted to probate. The court referred to law reform recommendation that the requirement a will be signed ‘at the foot of end thereof be abolished’. Noting that in the Second Reading Speech to the Succession Amendment Bill, the Attorney General the Honourable Linda Lavarch, observed:
“Mr Speaker, the Bill also relaxes certain formal execution
requirements by removing the current requirement that a will must be
signed ‘at the foot or end thereof’. Until now, this requirement has
meant that where a signature is unconventionally placed on a will, all
gifts that appear below it are invalid. The Act will now require that
the signature of the testator is made with the intention of executing
the will but it is not essential that the will be signed at its foot.”
The court found that the will was duly executed under the Succession Act, despite Kevin only signing page one. The Act requires the testator and witnesses sign the will, but signatures need not be on the same page or at the end. Kevin clearly intended the page one provisions to operate. The witnesses signed at the end and saw Kevin sign page one.
The court concludes Kevin’s failure to sign page two does not invalidate the will or breach the Succession Act’s requirements. As the will was duly executed, the court did not need to consider dispensing with execution requirements. Letters of administration with the will was granted to Cherie.