ByLawyers News and Updates

Succession & Probate Lists – NSW

by

The New South Wales Supreme Court has introduced combined Succession & Probate lists, for family provision claims and contested probate applications.

The new list replaces the Family Provisions Claims list previously managed by Justice Hallen, who is retiring. The court has never previously had a specialist list for contested probate matters.

Re-issued Practice Note SC EQ 07 – Succession & Probate Lists updates the procedures applicable to family provision and contested probate matters in the Court.

Key points include:

  • These types of matters will be managed and heard in the Succession & Probate List.
  • Directions and the hearing of interlocutory motions will be dealt with on Fridays, with Monday directions being phased out.
  • There will be two judges managing the list, initially Justices Meek and Lindsay.
  • There will be two judges available for the list on Fridays.
  • If possible, family provision applications whether combined with probate or not, will be dealt with by one judge and probate matters will be dealt with by the other judge.
  • Most interlocutory motions for matters in the list will require leave except urgent matters which can be listed by arrangement.
  • Subpoenas and Notices to produce for matters in the list will require leave.
  • Mediation for all matters in the list will be court annexed by default, unless the parties consent to private mediation or the Court otherwise orders.
  • Requirements for the content of the plaintiff’s affidavit in Family Provision matters updated.

The Court has indicated that the emphasis of the new list will be on strict case management and efficiency, in accordance with the overriding principal of just, quick and cheap disposal of the real issues in the proceedings under Section 56 Civil Procedure Act 2005 .

By Lawyers Family Provision Claims (NSW) and Supreme Court (NSW) – Equity Division guides have been updated accordingly, including the Retainer Instructions precedents which prompt practitioners to obtain the necessary instructions and documents required by the practice note.

Advance care directives – TAS

by

A legal framework for advance care directives has been introduced in Tasmania. This brings Tasmania into line with the mainland states.

The Guardianship and Administration Amendment (Advance Care Directives) Act 2021 commenced on 21 November 2022. It amends the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995.

The purpose of the act and advance care directives for which it provides is to:

  • enable persons with decision-making ability to give directions about their future health care;
  • enable persons with decision-making ability to express their preferences and values in respect of their future health care, including by specifying outcomes or interventions they wish to avoid;
  • ensure that health care accords with a person’s directions, preferences and values; and
  • protect health practitioners and others giving effect to the directions, preferences and values of the person receiving care.

Amendments have been made to the By Lawyers Powers of attorney, enduring guardianship, and advance care planning (TAS) publication, including:

  • New commentary on advance care directives covering:
    • a summary of the legal framework and general principles;
    • the formal requirements, including witnessing and execution;
    • registration with the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal; and
    • amendments and revocation;
  • Advance care directive statutory form added to the matter plan;
  • New Revocation of advance care directive and letters notifying relevant parties of the revocation;
  • Amended Retainer instructions to record the client’s instructions;
  • Amended Enclosure – Instructions for signing to add advance care directive signing requirements; and
  • Amended Appointment of enduring guardian to reflect the changes to s 32 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 relating to the endorsement of guardians. This applies to all appointments made from 21 November 2022.

Death certificates – VIC

by

There is a new process for issuing death certificates in Victoria from 11 July 2022. However, effectively nothing changes from the point of view of an application for Probate or Letters of Administration.

Under the new process there are now two death certificates issued by the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages:

  • Death certificate; and
  • Death certificate – Cause of death.

The difference is, as the names suggest, that the Death certificate does not include the cause of death, whereas the Death certificate – Cause of death does. Previously the death certificate always had the cause of death on it, unless the death was being investigated by the coroner, in which case no death certificate would issue until the coroner’s finding.

While both certificates will usually now be issued, if the death is being investigated by the coroner the Death certificate – Cause of death will be withheld until the coroner’s finding. Once the coroner has reported, a Death certificate – cause of death will be automatically sent to the applicant. The new Death certificate excludes the cause of death and burial information, is available immediately, and will generally be accepted for administration processes at banks, government entities and utility companies, allowing families to start managing a deceased estate quickly.

The Supreme Court registry has advised that the Death certificate – Cause of death must be filed with any application for probate or letters of administration. See the Court’s website for more information. From 11 July 2022, a certified copy of the Death Certificate – Cause of death must be exhibited to the affidavit in support of the application.

Superannuation and insurance companies will also likely continue to require a death certificate that includes the cause of death.

The By Lawyers Estates publication has been updated accordingly.

Legal Profession Uniform Law – WA

by

The Legal Profession Uniform Law applies in Western Australia from 1 July 2022.

Overview

The Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022 applies the existing national Legal Profession Uniform Law (LPUL) in WA, together with subordinate legislation. it is intended to simplify and standardise regulation for legal practitioners. It brings WA into line with New South Wales and Victoria. The Uniform Law replaces the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA).

The Uniform Law is governed by the Legal Services Council and the office of the Commissioner for Uniform Legal Services Regulation. Each participating jurisdiction has a representative on the council.

The council establishes the rules and policies that underpin the Uniform Law. The Commissioner oversees the dispute resolution and compliance functions of the Uniform Law.

The WA Legal Services and Complaints Committee and the Legal Practice Board continue to carry out complaint and investigation functions, grant practising certificates, and provide professional development.

While the Uniform Law makes many sweeping changes, the main effects on everyday practice concern costs disclosure and billing.

Costs disclosure

Disclosure obligations vary depending on the estimated legal costs in a matter.

Disclosure is not required where the total legal costs are not expected to exceed $750 excluding GST and disbursements. Where the total legal costs are not expected to exceed $3,000 excluding GST and disbursements, a law practice may use the prescribed uniform standard disclosure form contained in Schedule 1 of the Legal Profession Uniform General Rules.

Costs disclosure must be in writing and given to the client when instructions are taken, or as soon as reasonably practical after. It must include the basis on which legal costs will be calculated and an estimate of the total legal costs. It must include information about the client’s rights to negotiate the costs agreement, receive a bill, request an itemised bill, negotiate the billing method, and whether the costs are subject to a costs determination.

If there is any significant change the disclosure must be updated.

If a law practice fails to meet its disclosure obligations any cost agreement is void and the client is not required to pay the costs. The law practice cannot then commence or maintain any proceedings for recovery of costs until they are assessed, or any dispute determined by the Legal Practice Board. A contravention can also result in disciplinary action.

Where disclosure is made under the main disclosure requirements of the Uniform Law, a law practice must take all reasonable steps to satisfy itself that the client has understood and given consent to the proposed course of action for the conduct of the matter and the proposed costs.

Billing

The billing provisions of the Uniform Law do not apply if the client is a commercial organisation or government authority.

A bill may be expressed as a lump sum, or itemised. A client receiving a lump sum bill may request an itemised bill. The request must be made within 30 days after the date on which the legal costs became payable, and must be complied with within 21 days after receiving the request.

If the total amount of legal costs specified in an itemised bill is higher than the amount previously specified in a lump sum bill, the additional costs are only recoverable if the law practice previously told the client in writing that could be the case.

Each bill or covering letter accompanying each bill must be signed by a principal of the law practice, or nominate a principal of the law practice as the responsible principal for the bill.

A client may request progress reports on costs which must be provided within a reasonable period.

Lawyers may not charge for preparing or giving a bill or a progress report.

Bills must include a written statement setting out the client’s options to dispute the legal and the time limits applicable.

Interest may be charged on unpaid costs 30 days after a complying bill has been given if the bill contains a statement that interest will be payable and the rate chargeable. The maximum rate is prescribed, currently 2% above the cash rate target specified by the Reserve Bank of Australia at the time the bill was given.

By Lawyers updates

By Lawyers have made the introduction of the Legal Profession Uniform Law easy for our WA subscribers. Changes to By Lawyers publications to cover the LPUL include:

  • New costs agreements and short form costs disclosure for all WA guides and Federal guides. These are also available in 101 Costs Answers.
  • Updates to the Example Invoice Incorporating Notification of Client’s Rights – WA and the stand-alone Notification of Client’s Rights – WA precedents available on all WA and Federal matter plans.
  • Updates to the commentary on the requirements for professional executors in the Probate and Letters of Administration publications for WA.
  • Updates to the costs section in the Wills commentary including the Conflicts concerning practitioner’s own interests section and the Solicitors as executors section.
  • Updates to the WA trusts accounting section in the Practice Management guide
  • Relevant updates to 101 Costs Answers.

Excluded beneficiary – NSW

by

A recent Supreme Court case regarding an excluded beneficiary will be of interest to wills and estates practitioners. The court considered the effect of statements under s 100 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW).

Nikolaos Tsiokanis died in 2019, aged 86. His will appointed two of his children as the executors of his estate. He made only $100  provision for his other daughter. The deceased made a lengthy statement in the will as to his reasons for effectively excluding his daughter.

The daughter brought a family provision claim. The estate was not a large one.

The court held that the relationship the deceased had with the executors was a stable one and they played an important role in caring for the deceased. The court said the deceased was entitled to, and did, take the plaintiff’s behaviour into account and was satisfied that it justified the reduction of the plaintiff’s share in the estate to nominal provision.

The court also held that the deceased was entitled, when considering any claim by an excluded beneficiary, to consider the nature and value of his estate and to consider, and give priority to, the competing claim of each of the executors with whom he had a close, loving, and supportive relationship.

The court noted that statements made by the deceased are admissible pursuant to s 100(2) of the Succession Act, however the court is not required to accept, unquestioningly, the truth, or accuracy, of the statements. This is particularly so if the content is denied by the applicant, or where there is other evidence that casts doubt upon their accuracy. The court needs to consider that the deceased may have made untrue, or inaccurate, statements, either deliberately, or unintentionally, or it may be that their view is misconceived.

Where evidence of a statement of a deceased is admitted under s 100(9), for the purpose of destroying, or supporting, the credibility of the deceased, s 100(10) permits evidence to be given for the purpose of showing that the deceased’s statement is inconsistent with another statement made, at any time, by the deceased.

Georgopoulos v Tsiokanis & Anor [2022] NSWSC 563 (11 May 2022) will be added to the By Lawyers 101 Succession Answers publication.

Removal of an executor – VIC

by

New precedents for the removal of an executor have been added to the Probate and Letters of Administration matter plans.

In Victoria, an application can be made to the Supreme Court for the removal of an executor under s 34(1)(c) of the Administration and Probate Act 1958.

The court can remove the executor if, following an examination of the facts including a significant weighting to the testator’s intention to appoint the executor, the court is satisfied there is:

  • undue delay in the administration of the estate; or
  • a conflict of interest; or
  • an unworkable relationship between co-executors;

that would lead to significant mischief or harm to the beneficiaries’ interests.

In Connock v Connock (in His Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Connock) [2021] VSC 64 the plaintiff was the widow of the deceased. Both had previously been married and had children from these marriages. The plaintiff’s interest in the estate was limited to the assets of the deceased’s superannuation fund and proceeds from various bank accounts. The deceased’s will made no provision for the widow to take an interest in the residue of the estate.

The executor, the deceased’s child of the first marriage, commenced estoppel proceedings seeking a declaration that the plaintiff held the estate assets for her benefit and maintenance during her lifetime, but, on her death, for the benefit equally of the deceased’s children – one of whom was the executor.

The plaintiff claimed and the court accepted that the executor had a conflict of interest between the executor’s duties and his personal interest in the outcome of the estoppel proceeding, but that this conflict did not warrant the removal of the executor. The court held that, although the executor is in a position of conflict, in the circumstances the welfare of the beneficiaries of the estate did not warrant his removal.

The new form content precedents added to the Probate and Letters of Administration publications are:

  • Originating motion to remove and replace executor;
  • Originating motion to remove and replace trustee;
  • Originating motion to remove and replace executor and trustee.

Remote witnessing – QLD

by

From 30 April, 2022 certain temporary remote witnessing measures under the Justice Legislation (COVID-19 Emergency Response—Documents and Oaths) Regulation 2020 (QLD) which allowed parties to make and sign legal documents remotely using digital technology will become permanent. This continues a trend that has seen many COVID-related changes being permanently retained.

The Oaths Act 1867, Powers of Attorney Act 1998, and Property Law Act 1974 have been amended to allow remote witnessing of:

  • affidavits;
  • statutory declarations;
  • general powers of attorney for businesses;
  • deeds;
  • mortgages over an electronic lodgement network.

These documents can all be made remotely, via an audio-visual link, and signed and witnessed electronically.

Nurse practitioners, in addition to doctors, can continue to certify that a person has the capacity to make an advance health directive.

These changes do not limit the ability to make, sign and witness these documents on paper and in person, with respect to which the usual legislative requirements continue to apply.

All relevant By Lawyers guides and precedents have been updated where necessary to reflect these newly permanent arrangements.

However, not all temporary COVID arrangements for remote witnessing have been entrenched permanently.  The temporary laws allowing wills, enduring powers of attorney, and advance health directives to be witnessed over video conference expired on 1 July 2021. This means that these instruments must again be signed and witnessed in person. Similarly, unless given by an individual as part of a commercial transaction, a general power of attorney for an individual must be a physical document that is signed in the presence of a witness.

Statutory legacy – WA

by

The statutory legacy for intestacy in Western Australia has increased significantly.

Intestacy occurs when a will does not distribute a deceased estate effectively. The statutory legacy is the amount the deceased’s surviving relatives are entitled to on intestacy under the Administration Act 1903. However, since it was last amended in 1982, Western Australia had the lowest statutory legacy in Australia with the deceased’s surviving partner entitled to:

  • the deceased’s household chattels;
  • the first $50,000 of the intestate estate; and
  • an additional one-third of the balance of the intestate estate.

Where the deceased had children, they were entitled to an equal share of the remaining two-thirds of the balance of the intestate estate.

Where the deceased left a surviving partner but no children, the partner was entitled to $75,000.

If real property was not transferred to the deceased’s partner via survivorship, the statutory legacy could be insufficient for their maintenance.  This often led to a negotiated financial arrangement with their children or proceedings under the Family Provision Act 1972.

From 29 March 2022, with the commencement of the Administration Amendment Bill 2021 (WA), the surviving partner is entitled to:

  • the deceased’s household chattels;
  • the first $435,000 of the intestate estate; and
  • an additional one-third of the balance of the intestate estate.

The deceased’s children are still entitled to an equal share of the remaining two-thirds of the balance of the intestate estate.

Where the deceased left a surviving partner but no children, the partner is now entitled to $705,000

Under the existing scheme, the parental statutory legacy where the deceased is survived by parents, siblings, and nieces and nephews but is not survived by a partner or children, was $6,000. It has been increased to $56,500.

A formula has been added to the Act requiring the amount of these statutory legacies be reviewed every two years.

The commentary in the By Lawyers WA Letters of administration publication has been updated accordingly.

Online probate notifications – ACT

by

Online probate notifications have commenced in the ACT.

A named executor or administrator, as the legal personal representative of the deceased estate, has the responsibility to account for the assets and liabilities of the estate before distributing them by the terms of the Will.

In some cases, the estate assets may be released to the named legal personal representative of the estate, however to release certain assets a grant of probate must be obtained.

The legal personal representative commences an application in the probate list of the ACT Supreme Court. Until recently this required publication of a Notice of Intention to Apply in a daily newspaper circulating generally in the ACT. The notice is required to list the identity of the deceased, the date of death, and the date of the will. An application for probate is filed with the Court at least 14 days after this notice is published.

The ACT Supreme Court has amended the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), to introduce online probate notifications for:

  • a grant of probate;
  • a grant of letters of administration, on intestacy or with a will attached;
  • a reseal of a foreign grant.

Notices of Intention to Apply for a grant must now be published by completing the online form on the ACT Supreme Court website, not less than 14 days and not more than 3 months before the day the application is filed in Court.

The fee for publishing a notice is set out on the ACT Supreme Court website. A unique reference code is generated in the receipt from the online advertisement.

The By Lawyers ACT Probate and Letters of Administration commentaries have been updated accordingly.

Testamentary capacity checklist

by

A testamentary capacity checklist has been added to the matter plans in all By Lawyers will guides. This helpful precedent distills the critical information that practitioners must elicit to properly assess capacity. It is designed to assist lawyers both when taking instructions and when the will is being executed, whether in the office or at the client’s bedside.

Whether or not a client has testamentary capacity is not calculated via a legislated formula but derived from case law. It has been described as requiring time, situation, person, and task specific focus on a testator’s ability to remember, reflect, and reason.

The cases, starting from Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 require a testator to understand:

  • what it means to be making a will;
  • the assets they have and are leaving to others;
  • the obligation owed to those who could make a claim on the estate; and
  • whether or not they are affected by a delusion that influences the disposal of their assets.

The Court determines testamentary capacity on the facts and circumstances of each case.

In Star v Miller [2021] NSWSC 426, the court said that, when taking instructions, it is prudent for lawyers to ascertain the client’s capacity and the possibility of undue influence by asking non-leading questions to determine the facts and circumstances of each case. The By Lawyers testamentary capacity checklist includes such questions.

In Ryan v Dalton; Estate of Ryan [2017] NSWSC 1007 at 107, the court suggests that where an elderly client is being cared for by someone or is residing in an aged care facility, it is prudent to ask both clients and their carers whether there is any reason to be concerned about capacity. The By Lawyers testamentary capacity checklist prompts for these inquiries to be made.

The checklist was suggested by one of our subscribers. We worked with our authors to draft a document that is as short and simple as possible but protects practitioners by covering all necessary considerations. The checklist should be used in conjunction with the By Lawyers Wills retainer instructions.

Connect with us