Anderson v Yongpairojwong

1. [1]

   BELL CJ: On 10 March 2021, Amonrat Chanta (or Amy) died in Thailand. She had founded a chain of Sydney restaurants under the Chat Thai brand. Amy was survived by her son, Kulphat Laoyont (Pat or the Second Respondent), and daughter, Palisa Anderson (Palisa or the Appellant). Commonly used English names are used in this judgment, as they were in the proceedings below, without intending any disrespect.

2. [2]

   Amy executed two wills in the later years of her life. The more recent will was made in Thailand on 24 June 2020 (the Thai Will) and was propounded by Pat. An earlier will (the NSW Will) had been executed in New South Wales in 2017 and was propounded by Palisa.

3. [3]

   The parties agreed that, as at the date of her death, Amy was domiciled in New South Wales (although she physically died in Thailand). Her estate in New South Wales at the time of her death included:

   1. (1)

      a 1/3 interest in a farming property in Tyagarah NSW (Boon Luck Farm), valued at $4,500,000 total (Amy’s share being valued at $1,500,000);

   2. (2)

      a 12/100 interest in a property in Mosman (Mosman Property), valued between $8,000,000 to $8,500,000 total (Amy’s share being valued at $990,000);

   3. (3)

      $445,823.02 in cash, held in various accounts; and

   4. (4)

      substantial shareholdings in various companies (the CT Group) which she used as vehicles to operate her restaurant businesses, including two ordinary shares in Chat Thai Pty Ltd (Chat Thai), worth an estimated value of $1,281,000 - $1,455,000 as at May 2022.

4. [4]

   Amy also held real property in Thailand.

5. [5]

   A key difference between the two wills was that the Thai Will gave to Pat all of Amy’s shares in the CT Group whereas the NSW Will provided that, other than in relation to Chat Thai CBD Pty Ltd, Amy’s shareholding in the other companies in the CT Group was bequeathed to Palisa and Pat as tenants in common in equal shares. Under the NSW Will, Palisa and Pat were also given the residue of Amy’s estate as joint tenants whereas under the Thai Will, Pat received the residuary estate.

6. [6]

   It should be noted that, under both wills, Amy bequeathed to Palisa her shares in the Boon Luck Farm and the Mosman Property while the real property in Thailand was left to Pat. Moreover, prior to her death, on 1 July 2020, a week after the Thai Will was executed, Amy’s brother, Kijchai Yongpairojwong (Bob or the First Respondent), under a power of attorney, executed share transfer forms transferring Amy’s interest in the various Chat Thai companies to Pat. No attempt to impugn that transfer was made in the proceedings.

7. [7]

   What that practically meant was that, under the NSW Will, the residue was to be shared by Pat and Palisa whereas, under the Thai Will, the residue was to go only to Pat, noting that no reference was made to the Thai property in the NSW Will.

8. [8]

   The central issue in the proceedings at first instance related to Amy’s capacity to execute the Thai Will. Orders were made by Griffiths AJ (the primary judge), sitting at first instance, granting probate of the Thai Will to Pat, and dismissing Palisa’s claim: Anderson v Yongpairojwong [2023] NSWSC 1359 (PJ or the primary judgment). The primary judge also dismissed a family provision claim made by Palisa pursuant to s 59 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) (Succession Act). The trial extended over some six days, resulting in an expeditiously delivered judgment exceeding 100 pages.

9. [9]

   Palisa now appeals other than in respect of the family provision claim. The four grounds of appeal are as follows:

10. [10]

    Ground 1 in effect amounts to a general challenge to the primary judge’s conclusions as to Amy’s testamentary capacity. As will be seen, ground 2 wrongly characterises the primary judge’s treatment of the expert evidence. Ground 3 invokes the principle that, where suspicious circumstances are established, the presumption that the testatrix knew and approved the contents of her will is rebutted, and it is for those propounding the will positively to establish knowledge and approval. The drafting of appeal ground 3 inverts the proper sequence in that the presumption must be disturbed by reason of suspicious circumstances before questions of proof of knowledge and approval arise. As will be seen, the existence of suspicious circumstances was raised at first instance in an extremely exiguous manner and was rejected by the primary judge. Ground 4 relates to a procedural decision by the primary judge not to permit additional expert evidence to be introduced in the course of the trial, a decision which Mr Ellison SC, who appeared for the Appellant on appeal, but not at the trial, conceded was open to his Honour.

11. [11]

    The primary judgment necessarily involved the assessment of the evidence of numerous lay witnesses whom the primary judge had the advantage of observing in the witness box during their cross-examination. This involved his Honour assessing various disputed conversations, and necessarily making an assessment as to the credit of particular witnesses. No challenge was made to his Honour’s judgment in this regard.

12. [12]

    Another advantage which a trial judge has over an appellate court in a trial of any real length is what Stern JA, echoing observations in Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22, has recently described as immersion in the milieu of the trial: J and E Vella Pty Ltd v Hobson [2023] NSWCA 234 at [214].

13. [13]

    A real review of a judgment of the kind under consideration which has been affected by assessments of credibility requires the establishment of “glaringly improbable” conclusions or assessments “contrary to compelling inferences”: Lee v Lee (2019) 266 CLR 129; [2019] HCA 28 (Lee) at [55]. As will be seen, the primary judgment was not infected with such weaknesses.

Background

1. [14]

   The nature of the first ground of appeal in particular necessitates a reasonably detailed account of the evidence before the primary judge and his Honour’s detailed reasons for judgment.

2. [15]

   Amy was the matriarch of the Chat Thai businesses, which she operated through various companies under the CT Group. One such company was Chat Thai, which was the proprietor of “Chat Thai Randwick”, “Chat Thai Manly” and “Chat Thai Haymarket”, which Amy established in 1993, 2001 and 2007 respectively. Amy operated the business with Pat, Palisa and Palisa’s husband, Matthew Anderson (Matt).

3. [16]

   In 2005, Pat graduated from the University of New South Wales with a Bachelor of Architecture, and subsequently became more involved in the Chat Thai business. Pat was involved in the management and operation of the Chat Thai business, and he also contributed through design and fit-outs of the restaurants. Pat’s evidence was that he worked “side by side” with Amy in making “executive decisions”.

4. [17]

   In 2010, Palisa returned to Australia after being overseas since 2003 and became more involved in the Chat Thai business. Upon her return, Palisa’s role included being a brand ambassador, and contributing to corporate strategy and marketing. Palisa and Pat did not see “eye to eye” in relation to the operation of the Chat Thai business, which concerned Amy.

5. [18]

   In around March 2013, Palisa, Matt and Amy purchased the Mosman Property as tenants in common, with Amy owning a 12% interest, and Palisa and Matt owning a 44% interest each.

6. [19]

   In around November 2015, Palisa, Matt and Amy purchased Boon Luck Farm, with Amy acquiring a 1/3 interest. Boon Luck Farm produces organic fruit, vegetables and herbs, which supply the Chat Thai businesses and other restaurants in Sydney.

7. [20]

   The NSW Will was executed on 25 August 2017.

8. [21]

   In 2017, a small “dot” was discovered in Amy’s lung during a routine health check-up, despite Amy feeling no symptoms.

9. [22]

   In November 2018, Amy was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer in Thailand. From November 2018 to November 2019, Amy’s lung cancer was treated in Thailand.

10. [23]

    On 24 December 2019, Amy travelled to Sydney but returned to Bangkok on 13 January 2020 after complaining of headaches.

11. [24]

    Around 20 January 2020, Amy was diagnosed with brain cancer, the cancer having spread from her lungs. Amy underwent thoracentesis and pleurodesis procedures the same day.

12. [25]

    On 27 February 2020, doctors discovered significant progression of metastases in Amy’s lungs, and new metastases in Amy’s spine, brain and lymph nodes.

13. [26]

    From 15 to 30 March 2020, Amy received laser treatment in relation to her brain masses every two days in Thailand. On 29 March 2020, Amy underwent a cycle of chemotherapy. In late March 2020, Amy was sent home in Thailand with a pain management program, including fentanyl patches and morphine.

14. [27]

    From April 2020, Amy underwent further chemotherapy treatments around once every three weeks. From 12 to 13 April 2020, Amy was admitted to hospital in Bangkok, where her appearance was listed as “abnormal”.

15. [28]

    On 14 April 2020, Amy received treatment which consisted of various medications and drugs, including fentanyl and morphine. On 19 April 2020, Amy underwent a further cycle of chemotherapy. On 11 May 2020, Amy received carboplatin and paclitaxel (chemotherapy drugs), and from the next day, she received a range of other drugs. The chemotherapy and treatment with carboplatin and paclitaxel was repeated on 1 June 2020.

16. [29]

    The primary judge held that in early May 2020, Amy asked Bob to help her with updating her will: PJ [30]. The primary judge accepted Bob’s evidence that he translated the NSW Will into Thai and that Amy then told him to:

17. [30]

    On 2 June 2020, Amy met with Prasong Kasemnate, a lawyer in Thailand who had practiced in the area of wills and estates for 34 years at the time, and was recommended by Amy’s close friend, Thitirat Srisomboon. Bob was also present at this meeting. His affidavit evidence was that:

18. [31]

    Mr Kasemnate provided evidence that, during the meeting, an exchange occurred to the following effect:

19. [32]

    Mr Kasemnate gave unchallenged evidence that Amy was “able to communicate well and was in a good mood”, and that “she clearly conveyed her instructions for her new will and did not appear confused”. Following the meeting, Amy instructed Bob to prepare drafts of her updated will.

20. [33]

    Bob gave evidence that following his and Amy’s initial meeting with Mr Kasemnate, the three of them spoke by phone. He recalled Amy saying:

21. [34]

    On 11 June 2020, Amy appointed Bob as alternate director for Chat Thai, Chat Thai CBD and other companies. Bob provided evidence that he and Amy had the following exchange:

22. [35]

    In mid-June 2020, Bob also provided a draft will to Mr Kasemnate, which Bob said he had shown and read out to Amy, and which she had confirmed reflected her intentions. Bob provided evidence that, when updating the will, Bob and Amy would sit together, and Bob would read the contents of the will to Amy. Bob said that, throughout this process:

23. [36]

    On 21 June 2020, Amy was admitted to hospital in Bangkok for “palliative CMT”, which meant that chemotherapy was being administered with palliative intent. This treatment commenced the following day.

24. [37]

    On 24 June 2020, Amy was discharged from hospital and treated with various medications including fentanyl, morphine, and olanzapine.

25. [38]

    On the same day, Amy made the Thai Will. As already noted above at [6], under it, Palisa received Amy’s interest in Boon Luck Farm and the Mosman Property but received no shares in the CT Group. Pat received all of Amy’s shares in the CT Group, four parcels of land in Thailand and the residue of her estate.

26. [39]

    Bob was present when Amy signed the will on 24 June 2020, using her thumbprint. Bob’s evidence was that:

27. [40]

    The Thai Will was witnessed by two of Amy’s friends. One such friend, Ms Srisomboon, was also a business associate of Amy’s, who had had weekly contact with her since 2014 although the level of that contact had dissipated by mid-2019. Ms Srisomboon’s evidence was:

28. [41]

    The other witness was Nitha Klaisoi. Her evidence in relation to the day of execution of the Thai Will was as follows:

29. [42]

    On 1 July 2020, according to Bob’s evidence which the primary judge accepted (PJ [37]), Amy instructed Bob to execute share transfer forms in respect of her shares in Chat Thai, Chat Thai CBD Pty Ltd, Amy Pty Ltd, Jarern Chai Pty Ltd, Jumpee Travel Pty Ltd, Natui Website Pty Ltd and Thai Press Pty Ltd. Bob provided evidence that he and Amy had the following conversation:

30. [43]

    That same day, Amy transferred her shares in the companies outlined above at [42] to Pat. Bob signed the transfer forms required. The primary judge held that the transfers were consistent with the terms of the Thai Will: PJ [16]. His Honour also observed that this was “consistent with Amy’s desire earlier in April 2020 to explore the possibility of transferring the Mosman Property and Boon Luck Farm to Palisa prior to her death”: PJ [37].

31. [44]

    On 4 July 2020, Amy engaged in a discussion with Bob and Ole (Chat Thai’s accountant) in relation to issues concerning wages of her Chat Thai management staff during the COVID-19 pandemic.

32. [45]

    From 17 to 25 July 2020, Amy instructed her staff to open the restaurant at Hua Hin Farm because the Thai government had eased COVID-19 restrictions which enabled restaurants to open. Amy also provided specific instructions to the graphic designer in order to create a new menu. Bob provided evidence that Amy was “very clear” in her instructions about the direction she wanted her Hua Hin Farm restaurant to take.

33. [46]

    On 14 August 2020, Amy sent a voice message to Palisa, informing her that she did not consent to Palisa using the Chat Thai name for a restaurant Matt and Palisa were opening in Neutral Bay NSW. The voice message was recorded, as set out in Bob’s evidence, and stated:

34. [47]

    On 26 August 2020, Amy sent two voice messages to the Chat Thai staff group chat in the space of three minutes. The first message, at 7.44pm was as follows:

35. [48]

    At 7.47pm on 26 August 2020, Amy sent the second voice message to the Chat Thai staff group:

36. [49]

    On 27 August 2020, Amy sent the following voice message to her friend (and senior Chat Thai employee), Sirilada Kruahong (or Fern), in reference to the two earlier voice messages she sent the preceding day:

37. [50]

    From late October 2020, Bob noted that Amy started to become weaker and eventually stopped being capable of walking. Despite this, Bob noted that at this date, Amy could:

38. [51]

    On 16 November 2020, Amy experienced altered consciousness, meaning that she was sometimes awake, but at other times drowsy or unconscious. Amy was then admitted to the intensive care unit and intubated because doctors suspected she had septicaemia, and required support through ventilatory machines.

39. [52]

    From 28 November 2020, Amy was in a coma. During the coma, a CT scan of her brain showed progression of the brain metastases. As noted above, on 10 March 2021, Amy died.

The primary judgment

1. [53]

   The key issues at first instance concerned whether Amy possessed testamentary capacity at the point that she executed the Thai Will on 24 June 2020, and knew and approved of the contents of that will. This was an issue in respect of which Pat bore the onus of proof.

2. [54]

   His Honour referred to the familiar principles and authorities in this area as usefully summarised by Kirk JA in Lim v Lim [2023] NSWCA 84 at [7]-[9] (Lim). It is convenient to reproduce that summary:

3. [55]

   Reference was also made to the observation by Kirby P in Re Estate of Griffith (dec’d); Easter v Griffith (1995) 217 ALR 284 at 295:

4. [56]

   The primary judge accepted at PJ [209] that issues of capacity on the one hand and knowledge and approval on the other hand are separate concepts, citing Veall v Veall (2015) 46 VR 123; [2015] VSCA 60 at [166]. This conceptual distinction is reflected in the grounds of appeal.

5. [57]

   In relation to the question of knowledge and approval of the contents of the Thai Will, the primary judge noted the following principle at PJ [246]:

6. [58]

   The issues of Amy’s testamentary capacity and knowledge of the contents of the Thai Will centred upon a factual dispute as to Amy’s cognitive abilities as at 24 June 2020, the date of the will’s execution. His Honour engaged in a detailed assessment of both lay and expert evidence at PJ [40]-[198].

7. [59]

   The primary judge assessed the lay evidence of eight witnesses. For the Appellant, Palisa and Matt provided evidence. For the Respondents, there were six witnesses: Bob, Mr Kasemnate, Ms Klaisoi, Ms Srisomboon, Ms Kruahong and Pat. The primary judge’s assessment of each witness is outlined below.

8. [60]

   The primary judge summarised and assessed Palisa’s evidence, comprising five affidavits and oral evidence, at PJ [42]-[52]. His Honour held that, generally, Palisa was a “truthful and sincere witness”, despite being unresponsive to some questions, and providing indirect answers: PJ [45].

9. [61]

   Palisa’s first affidavit, dated 11 April 2022, recited that between December 2018 and July 2019, Amy was aware of her surroundings and circumstances, but was unwilling to enter discussions capable of causing stress, anxiety or conflict. The primary judge held that such evidence did not cast doubt on Amy’s cognition, and instead reflected a rational and considered decision: PJ [43(a)]. Palisa also stated that in December 2019, whilst in the Mosman Property, Amy only socialised if people visited her there. The primary judge held that such evidence was unsurprising, because this was during the Sydney bushfires: PJ [43(b)].

10. [62]

    Palisa’s first affidavit also claimed that, between August 2019 and January 2020, Amy was forgetful, lacked acuity, suffered from lethargy and generally demonstrated “scatter-brained” behaviour. Two indicative examples included:

    1. (1)

       forgetting about her plans to go to the movies with Palisa, and forgetting to attend a production meeting for a television series with SBS; and

    2. (2)

       when taking Palisa’s children to school, driving in the wrong direction towards CT Group’s shared office in Haymarket, rather than the school in Balmain.

11. [63]

    Palisa claimed that she had a conversation with Bob in mid-April 2020 where he purportedly said words to the effect that Amy’s pain management program had resulted in her being “too cloudy at times” and her “memory isn’t great”. Bob denied that this conversation took place, and the primary judge preferred Bob’s evidence on this issue: PJ [43(f)].

12. [64]

    Palisa gave evidence that, from mid-March to 5 June 2020, Amy had “bouts of forgetfulness and confusion”, evidenced by repeating herself, and calling Palisa either “Soraya” (Palisa’s daughter) or “Pat”. Palisa also said that Amy referred to chemotherapy as “sweet water” or “nectar”. The primary judge accepted Palisa’s evidence in this regard: PJ [43(g)]. Nonetheless, his Honour noted that such evidence must be assessed having regard to the evidence of other witnesses as to Amy’s cognition at the same time period: PJ [43(g)].

13. [65]

    Palisa also gave evidence that Ms Kruahong had told her that Amy seemed forgetful and was often repetitive. Ms Kruahong provided contrary evidence, saying that in or about mid-July 2020, Amy had left voice messages asking her to buy certain products for the Chat Thai business. Ms Kruahong said that Amy’s instructions in this regard were clear, and that she “sounded well and like her usual self”. The primary judge did not expressly determine whether he preferred Ms Kruahong or Palisa’s evidence on this specific point: PJ [43(h)].

14. [66]

    The primary judge noted that Palisa disagreed with Bob’s evidence that between mid-March 2020 and early June 2020 Amy “did not ever appear to have been mentally affected by the chemotherapy treatments in April 2020”. Palisa said that Amy would say to her that she felt weak and was having problems breathing, ate very little, slept poorly and was paranoid about her medication and supplements. His Honour noted that this evidence indicated that Amy was physically debilitated by the chemotherapy, which was hardly surprising, but that, to the extent that it bore upon Amy’s cognitive functioning during this time, his Honour considered that the evidence should not be looked at in isolation but “needed to be assessed along with the evidence of other witnesses who were in as good if not a better position than Palisa to assess Amy’s cognition during and around this time, particularly Bob who was spending a lot of time with Amy in Thailand”: PJ [44(a)].

15. [67]

    The primary judge held that Matt was a “truthful witness”, but that his evidence was of “limited value in assessing Amy’s testamentary capacity”: PJ [57]. Matt provided unchallenged evidence that during his visit to Bangkok from 29 January to 4 February 2020, Amy described Matt as “my son”, and when Matt tried to correct this, Amy repeated “[n]o, you are my son”.

16. [68]

    The primary judge gave this evidence “little weight” because the event occurred five months prior to the Thai Will’s execution: PJ [53]. Furthermore, the confusion could be explained by the fact that the impugned conversation occurred during her hospitalisation for brain cancer. In turn, his Honour held that such evidence should be weighed against all other relevant evidence concerning Amy’s capacity when the Thai Will was executed: PJ [53]. It might also be added that he was Amy’s son in law and such a reference may well have been understandable in that context.

17. [69]

    The primary judge held that Bob, who gave evidence through a translator, was a “truthful and responsive witness” and accepted his evidence “without reservation”: PJ [59]. The primary judge also rejected challenges made to Bob’s credibility: PJ [59].

18. [70]

    The primary judge held, in respect of Bob’s assessment of Amy’s capacity around the time of executing the Thai Will (PJ [68]):

19. [71]

    Bob observed that in February 2020, “Amy was alert and able to remember things that happened recently, as well as in the longer term past”. Around 14 February 2020, Amy was described by Bob as being “normal as she was able to speak normally, although a little slower”. Palisa sought to criticise such evidence as “vague” and “devoid of specificity”. However, the primary judge rejected such criticisms, holding that Bob’s evidence constituted “the kinds of observations which one would expect to be made about another family member in Amy’s condition. Nor were they lacking in particularity”: PJ [75].

20. [72]

    Bob provided further evidence, which the primary judge accepted at PJ [77], that:

21. [73]

    Palisa contended that Bob’s process for creating the Thai Will was deficient, as Bob purportedly never asked Amy whether she understood the contents of the will. This submission rather overlooked Bob’s evidence, which the primary judge accepted, that it was Amy who gave Bob the instructions to alter her NSW Will: see [29] above. Further, the primary judge held at PJ [79] that Palisa’s submission did not “accurately reflect Bob’s oral evidence”, which was as follows:

22. [74]

    The primary judge noted that Mr Kasemnate was an experienced Thai lawyer, with 34 years’ legal practice: PJ [86]. The primary judge observed that it was “clear that Mr Kasemnate turned his mind to whether Amy had testamentary capacity”, which was unsurprising because he was visiting Amy in hospital for the purpose of providing legal advice about creating a new will: PJ [86].

23. [75]

    As already noted, Mr Kasemnate’s unchallenged evidence concerning Amy’s testamentary capacity was that, at the time of his meeting with Amy:

24. [76]

    Mr Kasemnate noted that the above observations were made because:

25. [77]

    Mr Kasemnate further explained that he assessed Amy’s health at the time of the meeting because:

26. [78]

    The primary judge held that such oral evidence provided (PJ [87]):

27. [79]

    Whilst Ms Klaisoi witnessed Amy execute the Thai Will, she admitted that she was not close friends with Amy, and only had around ten interactions with her, which “lasted about one minute each time”. Accordingly, his Honour gave “Ms Klaisoi’s evidence little if any weight on the issue of Amy’s testamentary capacity”: PJ [89].

28. [80]

    The primary judge accepted at PJ [240] that Ms Srisomboon had known Amy for “many years”, despite not having seen her for almost a year before witnessing the execution of the Thai Will. His Honour acknowledged that Ms Srisomboon spoke with Amy for 15 minutes whilst the Thai Will was being executed. Ms Srisomboon’s evidence that, in her view, on the day of the Thai Will’s execution, “[t]here was no difference in Amy’s mental capacity… She spoke clearly and was able to maintain conversation. There were no issues with Amy’s memory” was also noted by his Honour. Ms Srisomboon also gave evidence that Amy was “thinking like a business woman” and “she want[ed] to get things organised”: PJ [90]. His Honour held that these latter statements provided “some, albeit limited, weight regarding Amy’s capacity at the time”, and that they were consistent with Amy’s contemporaneous decision to arrange her affairs: PJ [90].

29. [81]

    Ms Kruahong is a senior employee of the CT Group, and was Amy’s friend: PJ [91]. Ms Kruahong provided evidence that there was a group meeting on 3 March 2020 with Amy, and that during the meeting, the Chat Thai businesses were discussed at length, including employee roles and management. Ms Kruahong acknowledged that Bob was providing Amy with “considerable” assistance in this process.

30. [82]

    Ms Kruahong provided evidence as to the two voice messages sent on 26 August 2020 by Amy to the Chat Thai group chat (set out at [47]-[48] above), which the Appellant contended were repetitive and indicated her declining cognitive capacity: PJ [95].

31. [83]

    The primary judge rejected Palisa’s contention that the voice messages were repetitive, noting that there was no mention in the first voice message sent at 7.44pm that the apparatus which Amy was using or blowing was called the “ping pong machine”: PJ [104]. The first message made no reference to a “ping pong” machine, and instead only referred to the apparatus being a “balloon”: PJ [104].

32. [84]

    Furthermore, the primary judge held that Amy’s subsequent personal voice message to Ms Kruahong on 27 August 2020 (see [49] above) was significant because (PJ [107]):

33. [85]

    Consequently, the primary judge “firmly” rejected Palisa’s contention that the voice messages sent on 26 and 27 August 2020 outlined above cast doubt on Amy’s cognition in the period that those messages were sent: PJ [109]. Rather, his Honour drew the opposite inference: PJ [109].

34. [86]

    The primary judge rejected the Appellant’s contentions that Pat was a “most unsatisfactory witness” and that he refused to make “direct and frank answers to questions”: PJ [110]. The majority of the evidence provided by Pat did not relate specifically to Amy’s testamentary capacity, and instead concerned his role in the business, and ancillary matters: see PJ [111]-[143]. Pat annexed to his first affidavit dated 8 April 2022 a video taken of Amy around October 2020 singing one of her favourite Thai songs while Pat drove her to her chemotherapy appointments: PJ [119].

35. [87]

    Palisa relied upon two expert medical reports prepared by Dr Dua and Professor Ogden. The primary judge placed minimal weight on either report in determining Amy’s testamentary capacity because neither expert examined Amy, and both relied upon medical records which provided minimal detail as to Amy’s cognitive capacity:

36. [88]

    The primary judge held that the utility of Dr Dua’s evidence in determining Amy’s capacity was “limited by the fact that it [was] based upon his review of limited medical records which documented Amy’s treatment and hospital admissions”: PJ [156].

37. [89]

    In summary, Dr Dua’s opinion as to Amy’s testamentary capacity as at the date of executing the Thai Will was that:

38. [90]

    Dr Dua’s reasoning was as follows:

    1. (1)

       The location of the brain metastases is important to the patient’s cognitive function when suffering from cancer that has spread to the brain;

    2. (2)

       Radiation therapy and chemotherapy impact cognition in patients with brain metastases and the chemotherapy often results in what oncologists call “chemo brain”;

    3. (3)

       The cognition of patients with metastasised brain cancer depends on the cancer’s response to treatment, and certain treatments can affect cognition;

    4. (4)

       The presence of leptomeningeal disease (as was the case for Amy from 21 January 2020) impacts cognition; and

    5. (5)

       In his experience, where a patient’s disease progresses on a trajectory similar to Amy’s, and a patient experiences similar treatments, that person will “almost always suffer significant cognitive impairment as a consequence of both the disease and its treatment”.

39. [91]

    Dr Dua acknowledged that the Thai medical and hospital records on which his report relied were “not clear or comprehensive”, and that day-to-day observations or examinations of the registrar would have assisted in making more specific observations about Amy’s cognition: PJ [146(c)].

40. [92]

    Furthermore, while there was no reference to any cognitive impairment in the medical records dated 5 April 2020, 12 April 2020 and 13 April 2020, Dr Dua explained that such issues may have been overshadowed by greater concerns to her health, such as fluid in Amy’s lungs on 5 April 2020, and potential febrile neutropenia on 12 April 2020: PJ [146(h)].

41. [93]

    Nonetheless, the primary judge noted that none of the medical records reviewed by Dr Dua contained any notations or observations of any cognitive impairment or reference to Amy suffering cognitive side effects from her treatment: PJ [157]. Furthermore, physical examination of Amy on 27 February 2020 showed that she recorded “good consciousness” and received the top Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score: PJ [157(d)]. Similar observations were found by the primary judge to have been made in hospital records dated 15 March 2020, 13 April 2020, 19 April 2020, 10 May 2020, 31 May 2020 and 21 June 2020: PJ [157(d)].

42. [94]

    Dr Dua acknowledged in cross-examination that the outpatient medical note dated 27 February 2020 recorded a GCS (which measures basic neurological function) of 15, which was the “top score” available in relation to monitoring neurological function. Nonetheless, Dr Dua explained that the GCS is not a measure of cognition, and that it was merely a measure of basic neurological function.

43. [95]

    As noted above, the primary judge placed minimal weight on Dr Dua’s evidence concerning Amy’s cognition, largely due to the limited material available to him (PJ [156]):

44. [96]

    The primary judge held that Professor Ogden was an “exemplary witness”, but that his evidence failed to assist the court in determining Amy’s testamentary capacity at the point of her executing the Thai Will (PJ [160]):

45. [97]

    Professor Ogden’s “fundamental conclusion” was that Amy’s cognition was likely impaired at the time she executed the Thai Will:

46. [98]

    Like Dr Dua, Professor Ogden acknowledged that the available medical records, on which his report relied, were “incomplete”: PJ [161]. Furthermore, similar to Dr Dua, Professor Ogden commented on the side effects of the medication that Amy was taking, which included fentanyl, morphine, olanzapine and lorazepam: PJ [170]-[181].

47. [99]

    Professor Ogden observed that Amy suffered weight loss of 30kg due to her condition of cachexia, and that such “wasting away” is concomitant with profound changes to the brain’s functioning: PJ [177].

48. [100]

    Professor Ogden provided two examples which served to highlight the importance of closely examining persons in order to properly assess their cognition: PJ [178]. Professor Ogden said that, when observing the first patient in-person, it became clear that he was not aware of the changes that he wished to make to his will: PJ [178].

49. [101]

    The second example related to Professor Ogden’s father. Professor Ogden explained that, through speaking with his father, it became clear that he did not consider the implications of what he was saying. Both examples, according to Professor Ogden’s own evidence, highlighted the importance of “having a close conversation” with the person whose cognition needs to be assessed – “preferably someone who is fully independent”: PJ [179].

50. [102]

    The primary judge held that Professor Ogden’s evidence as to the importance of assessing individuals by having a face-to-face conversation served to diminish the strength of Professor Ogden and Dr Dua’s evidence, as neither of them had such an opportunity with Amy (PJ [180]):

51. [103]

    So much was acknowledged by Professor Ogden, who said that the real way of determining the effect of an illness on an individual’s cognition is by having a conversation with that person: PJ [196]. Consequently, the primary judge placed less weight on Professor Ogden and Dr Dua’s evidence in relation to Amy’s cognition, as compared to Mr Kasemnate, Bob and Ms Kruahong: PJ [197]-[198].

52. [104]

    On 25 October 2023, Palisa sought leave to file a supplementary report made by Professor Ogden, dated 22 October 2023: PJ [182]. This application was made on day three of a six day trial.

53. [105]

    Professor Ogden’s proposed supplementary report was to the effect that his conclusions as to Amy’s cognition (see [97] above) had not been altered by either the pleadings or the lay evidence adduced in the proceedings: PJ [182].

54. [106]

    Palisa sought to explain the delay in obtaining the supplementary report on the basis that the Respondents made no objections to the earlier medical evidence: PJ [183]. However, as his Honour noted, the Respondents’ outline of submissions dated 18 October 2023 did note that Professor Ogden and Dr Dua did not consider any lay evidence – motivating Palisa’s application to introduce Professor Ogden’s supplementary report: PJ [183].

55. [107]

    The primary judge ruled that Palisa should not be granted leave to adduce Professor Ogden’s supplementary report because (PJ [188]):

56. [108]

    The primary judge held that he was “comfortably satisfied” that the Respondents discharged their onus in proving that Amy had testamentary capacity at the time that she executed the Thai Will on 24 June 2020: PJ [244].

57. [109]

    His Honour determined the issue of Amy’s testamentary capacity according to the following four-stage criteria (Lim at [7]-[9]; Carr v Homersham (2018) 97 NSWLR 328; [2018] NSWCA 65 at [5]-[6]) (PJ [212]-[213]):

58. [110]

    The primary judge disposed of this limb at PJ [216] as follows:

59. [111]

    The primary judge held that there was strong evidence to suggest that Amy understood the nature and value of her estate. For instance, Palisa provided evidence that Amy had discussions about transferring Amy’s interest in the Mosman Property and Boon Luck Farm to Palisa.

60. [112]

    Furthermore, Amy expressed her wish to transfer her shares in the CT Group to Pat shortly after making her Thai Will, which also contemplated bequeathing such shares to him: PJ [218(b)]. Amy’s involvement in the Chat Thai businesses, and her expressed intention for Pat to become the “leader” of the business, suggested Amy’s knowledge that she controlled the CT Group, and that she intended to pass control to Pat through bequeathing her shares: PJ [218(d)]. Such evidence suggested to the primary judge that Amy was aware of the extent of her estate.

61. [113]

    The primary judge held that Amy appreciated, at the time of executing the Thai Will, who might reasonably have a claim to her estate: PJ [219]. His Honour held that there was “no doubt” that Amy appreciated that Palisa and Pat had a claim to her estate, and that Palisa’s children might also have a claim: PJ [219]. Whilst the Thai Will did not refer to Palisa’s children, the primary judge held that it was reasonable to infer that Amy was content to trust that Pat would carry out her intention that Palisa’s children would obtain an interest in the Hua Hin Farm once they reach the majority age: PJ [219].

62. [114]

    The primary judge reached the conclusion that Amy could call to mind and weigh competing claims to her estate by having regard to (PJ [220]):

    1. (1)

       inferences drawn from the will itself;

    2. (2)

       Amy’s own explanations of her testamentary intentions;

    3. (3)

       Amy’s interactions with friends and colleagues;

    4. (4)

       Amy’s own interactions with Palisa; and

    5. (5)

       observations of independent third party witnesses.

63. [115]

    The primary judge held that the will itself evidenced that Amy had regard to the competing claims of Palisa and Pat, as shown by the fact that she made “substantial provision” for both her children: PJ [221]. The primary judge held that, whilst Palisa received less under the Thai Will as compared to the NSW Will, she still received approximately $2,500,000 in property through Amy’s devising her interest in the Mosman Property and the Boon Luck Farm: PJ [222].

64. [116]

    The primary judge held that Amy clearly explained that she intended for Pat to receive the CT Group shares due to her trust in Pat, and concerns about Matt’s vision for the Chat Thai businesses: PJ [223]. The primary judge reached this conclusion having regard to three conversations that Amy had with Bob and Mr Kasemnate. The primary judge relied upon three statements that Amy made in this regard.

65. [117]

    First, Bob provided evidence, which the primary judge accepted, that Amy said to Bob:

66. [118]

    Secondly, Bob also gave evidence that Amy said to him:

67. [119]

    Thirdly, Mr Kasemnate gave evidence that Amy said similar words to him, to the effect that she wanted Pat to control the Chat Thai business, and that she was concerned about Matt’s influence on the company: PJ [225]. Each of the three statements were consistent with one another, and reflected Amy’s clear intention for Pat to take over the business, which would be affected by her bequeathing her interest in the CT Group shares to him.

68. [120]

    Despite this, the primary judge noted that Amy did not fail to consider Palisa: PJ [227]. Rather, Amy made express reference to Palisa’s involvement in TV shows, and that she was confident that Palisa could succeed in her own right: PJ [227]. For instance, Bob provided evidence that Amy said to him:

69. [121]

    Such statements by Amy indicated to the primary judge that she did weigh the competing claims to her estate, and made the conscious decision to bequeath her shares in the CT Group to Pat.

70. [122]

    The primary judge held that Amy had sufficient cognitive function at the time of executing the Thai Will on 24 June 2020, as evidenced by her interactions with friends and colleagues. His Honour reached this conclusion having regard to: (i) her continued and active involvement in the Chat Thai business between February and July 2020; and (ii) the videos of Amy annexed to Pat’s affidavit.

71. [123]

    The primary judge held that from February to July 2020, Amy was actively engaged with her employees, asked questions and provided instructions – suggesting that she retained sufficient cognitive function: PJ [230]. On 25 May 2020, Amy discussed the rent of the Jarern Chai and Boon Café and there was no indication that Amy was confused or misunderstood the interaction: PJ [230(a)].

72. [124]

    The primary judge made reference to various other interactions that Amy had with employees in relation to the Chat Thai business throughout July 2020 and August 2020 – each indicating that she had maintained a sufficient level of cognitive capacity to enter the will: see PJ [230(b)-(g)].

73. [125]

    His Honour further held that three videos annexed to Pat’s affidavit provided “some support for finding that Amy had what appeared to be normal or sufficient cognitive functioning at least at the time the videos were taken”: PJ [232]. The first video, dated 9 May 2020, showed Amy using a stairlift at Hua Hin Farm. His Honour held that Amy appeared alert, and immediately followed Bob’s instructions to stop the inclinator during the stairlift’s descent: PJ [232].

74. [126]

    The second video, dated 16 June 2020, showed Amy speaking frequently with her physiotherapist, and “plainly understanding her instructions”: PJ [233]. The primary judge observed that Amy was laughing and freely conversing – showing no evidence of a failure to communicate or understand what was happening: PJ [233]. The third video, dated 31 October 2020, showed Amy travelling in a car, smiling and singing to a Thai song – having no difficulty remembering the words: PJ [234]. The video, taken three months after making the Thai Will, was relied upon by the primary judge as evidence that she had remained “quite alert”: PJ [234]. Consequently, the three videos, taken alongside with Amy’s active involvement in the business around the time of making the Thai Will, suggested to the primary judge that she had testamentary capacity.

75. [127]

    The primary judge held that Amy’s interactions with Palisa indicated that Palisa herself had trust in Amy’s cognition around the time of making the Thai Will: PJ [235]. On 3 April 2020, Palisa emailed Mr Mitry, an Australian lawyer, to draft provisions in Amy’s will to ensure Amy’s interest in the Mosman Property and Boon Luck Farm passed to Palisa on Amy’s death. The primary judge held that the “inescapable inference” of the email was that at 3 April 2020, Palisa considered that Amy had capacity to amend her will: PJ [235(a)].

76. [128]

    Palisa gave evidence that, in early May 2020, Amy had the following discussion with her:

77. [129]

    The primary judge noted that Palisa observed that Amy could experience bouts of confusion or forgetfulness (see [64] above). Nonetheless, Palisa also accepted that Amy did not always experience such confusion and forgetfulness, and that such times included when Amy and Palisa discussed Amy’s will: PJ [236]. Consequently, the primary judge held that he was “comfortably satisfied” that Amy had testamentary capacity to enter the Thai Will on 24 June 2020: PJ [236].

78. [130]

    Finally, the primary judge had regard to the observations of third party lay witnesses who saw and spoke with Amy. His Honour noted the dicta of Young JA in Zorbas v Sidiropoulous (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 197 at [89] (Zorbas):

79. [131]

    The primary judge noted that Mr Kasemnate, who was an experienced Thai lawyer, understood that Amy must have capacity to execute the will: PJ [238]. As noted at [32] and [75] above, Mr Kasemnate observed that Amy was “able to communicate well and was in a good mood”, and that “she clearly conveyed her instructions for her new will and did not appear confused”. His Honour held that (PJ [239]):

80. [132]

    In respect of Ms Srisomboon’s evidence, the primary judge noted that she knew Amy well, spoke with her for 15 minutes during the execution of the Thai Will, and observed that:

81. [133]

    The primary judge held that Bob’s evidence should be attributed “significant weight because he was able to observe Amy at close quarters over many months”: PJ [241]. His Honour also noted that Bob was not a beneficiary under the will: PJ [241].

82. [134]

    Bob observed that, in April 2020, Amy “did not ever appear to have been mentally affected by her chemotherapy treatments”. Furthermore, Bob provided evidence that on 24 June 2020, during the signing of the Thai Will, Amy “appeared normal and did not have any issues with her mental capacity”.

83. [135]

    The primary judge ultimately held that, having regard to all the evidence, he was “comfortably satisfied” that the Respondents had discharged their onus of establishing that Amy had testamentary capacity to execute the Thai Will on 24 June 2020: PJ [244].

84. [136]

    The primary judge summarised the principles relating to the requirement that the testator had knowledge and approval of a will in the passage reproduced at [57] above. His Honour noted that, in many cases, suspicious circumstances arise through the conduct of a beneficiary in procuring the will. His Honour held that there was nothing in the circumstances surrounding the preparation of the Thai Will that excited suspicion in the present circumstances: PJ [248]. For instance, his Honour noted that: Amy personally explained her reasons for making a new will to Mr Kasemnate; neither of the beneficiaries were involved in the will-making process; and the will was rational on its face: PJ [248]. Consequently, his Honour held that he was satisfied that Amy knew and approved the contents of the Thai Will.

85. [137]

    Attention is now turned to the grounds of appeal.

Grounds 1 and 2: Amy’s testamentary capacity and the medical evidence

1. [138]

   Ground 1 of the appeal is, in effect, a wholesale challenge to the primary judge’s conclusion in relation to testamentary capacity. The Court must undertake a real review, and although this must be undertaken by the “correctness standard” (see Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531 at 552; [1979] HCA 9), the primary judge’s evaluative judgment was influenced by findings concerning the credibility of Palisa, Pat and Bob. These findings have been summarised in some detail above at [59]-[86] and, to the extent that the primary judge had the advantage of observing the witnesses, deference should be given to that advantage for the reasons stated in Fox v Percy at [23].

2. [139]

   Such advantages are less significant as a general proposition in relation to expert evidence. Here, however, it was not the Appellant’s experts of which the primary judge was critical but, rather, the lack of support for their conclusions in Amy’s medical records coupled with the fact that neither of them had ever examined Amy in person. Their evidence also did not take into account the lay evidence as to interactions with Amy around the time of execution of the will nor her recorded messages which suggested real lucidity on Amy’s part.

3. [140]

   In this context, ground 2 is problematic insofar as it attributed to the primary judge a holding that the expert reports of Dr Dua and Professor Ogden were “incapable of assisting him in concluding that the testatrix lacked testamentary capacity as at the date of execution of the Thai Will on 24 June 2020”. His Honour analysed both reports in some detail in his reasons before concluding that “I do not consider that their opinions outweigh the evidence of the lay witnesses and other materials which support a finding that Amy did not lack testamentary capacity”: PJ [198] (emphasis added). In reaching this conclusion, his Honour cited the following observation of Vickery J in Nicholson v Knaggs [2009] VSC 64 at [41]:

4. [141]

   To similar effect are the authorities collected in Lim at [217]-[218] which gathered authority for the principle neatly summarised by Windeyer J in Kerr v Badran [2004] NSWSC 735 (Kerr) to the effect that:

5. [142]

   The short answer to this ground of appeal is that the primary judge simply did not hold that the expert evidence of Dr Dua and Professor Ogden was “incapable” of assisting him. Rather, consistent with authority, his Honour weighed it against other evidence. He did not consider that it had a great deal of weight, and gave reasons for this. He was correct to so hold.

6. [143]

   In this area of law, it is common for experts to offer opinions as to the testamentary capacity of a deceased person. Where the expert is not the deceased’s treating doctor, such evidence will invariably draw upon, inter alia, clinical notes and/or lay evidence. In the present case, although there were numerous medical notes in evidence created in the period up to the execution of the Thai Will, none of those notes made any material reference to the deceased’s cognitive capacity.

7. [144]

   Furthermore, neither Dr Dua nor Professor Ogden offered opinions which took account of the extensive lay evidence that was filed. True it is that a belated attempt was made, on the third day of the trial, to file a supplementary report of Professor Ogden but that attempt was rejected by the primary judge. This rejection is the subject of the fourth ground of appeal considered below.

8. [145]

   The key point however for the purposes of the second ground of appeal is that the expert evidence relied upon by the Appellant was not of great weight in part because of the fact that neither expert had ever examined the deceased nor did the experts have any clinical notes upon which to draw to support the conclusions they reached. Nor did they take into account the extensive body of lay evidence recording various witnesses’ conversations and interactions with the deceased in the period leading up to, on the day of execution of, and postdating the Thai Will which were capable of having a bearing upon the deceased’s testamentary capacity as at the date of execution of the Thai Will.

9. [146]

   Returning to ground 1, the Appellant advanced very little by way of oral argument in support of ground 1. In written submissions, one argument advanced by the Appellant was that the primary judge erred in placing reliance on the GCS test results without adverting to the significance of Dr Dua’s evidence as to what the test in fact meant.

10. [147]

    Reference was made to PJ [157] which was as follows:

11. [148]

    The Appellant contended that “if the primary judge attached any significance to the [GCS] test result in his conclusion”, his Honour’s reliance upon the GCS to determine Amy’s capacity was misplaced for the reasons provided by Dr Dua, to which “no proper regard was had” and which “ought to have been considered” (emphasis added). In this regard, Dr Dua explained in cross-examination that the GCS “does not monitor cognition, this is just basically monitoring the basic neurological [function]”. The primary judge was aware of this matter and expressly referred to it, recording Dr Dua’s evidence that the GCS was “not a measure of cognition; merely a measure of basic neurological function”: at PJ [146(f)(i)]. This reference, together with that in PJ [157] were the only references to the GCS test result in the entirety of the primary judgment. The Appellant’s submission was tellingly prefaced by the phrase that “if the primary judge attached any significance to the [GCS] test …”. There is no basis for thinking that he did, and even if he did, he expressly referred to Dr Dua’s evidence as noted above.

12. [149]

    The Appellant also argued that the primary judge erred because he: (i) observed that there was a lack of medical notations or observations referring to Amy’s cognition; and (ii) relied on the absence of medical notations to infer that Amy had satisfactory cognitive capacity.

13. [150]

    This argument was to misstate and greatly oversimplify the primary judge’s approach which was entirely orthodox. True it is that his Honour emphasised that in the present case, no support was provided for the expert’s conclusion by medical records of the deceased: cf Wild v Meduri (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 669. These will frequently provide the data upon which expert witnesses, who have never examined the deceased testator, draw for the purposes of expressing their opinions. Even where such reasoning is based upon such medical records, it will not necessarily be decisive in circumstances where there is other evidence of greater cogency which points in a different direction to the expert opinion, as the cases referred to in [141] make plain and as was also the case in Wild v Meduri.

14. [151]

    Contrary to the Appellant’s submission, the primary judge did not reach the positive conclusion that Amy had testamentary capacity by reason of the absence of medical records pointing to such a conclusion. The primary judge did not reason that the absence of such evidence was evidence of the presence of testamentary capacity. As already explained, the significance of the absence of medical records was that it limited the value of the expert medical reports provided by Dr Dua and Professor Ogden.

15. [152]

    The Appellant also argued that the primary judge erred at PJ [180] in suggesting that Professor Ogden’s evidence should receive less weight than that of Mr Kasemnate, Bob and Ms Kruahong because those three lay witnesses were “incapable” of establishing that Amy had testamentary capacity at the time of making the Thai Will. The context is supplied by PJ [178]-[179], summarised at [100]-[102] above. In short, Professor Ogden had referred to the benefits of personal observations in assessing testamentary capacity. He then continued at PJ [180]: “I entirely agree with this aspect of Professor Ogden’s evidence. Ironically, it serves to highlight the fact that Professor Ogden did not have the same opportunity with Amy to observe her cognition personally in contrast with the other two cases he described so powerfully. This is to be contrasted with the advantage experienced by people such as Mr Kasemnate, Bob and [Ms Kruahong], who were able to observe Amy at close quarters.”

16. [153]

    The primary judge’s reasoning was entirely unremarkable and simply an illustration of the point Windeyer J had made in Kerr: see [141] above.

17. [154]

    The Appellant argued that, contrary to his Honour’s reasoning at PJ [180], Ms Kruahong’s evidence failed to establish that Amy had testamentary capacity at the time of making the Thai Will. Specifically, the Appellant contended that Ms Kruahong’s evidence concerning Amy’s two voice messages to Chat Thai staff on 26 August 2020 evidenced her lack of testamentary capacity. These messages are set out at [47]-[48] above.

18. [155]

    The primary judge rejected the Appellant’s argument that these two messages indicated a lack of memory or testamentary capacity and, in fact, pointed in the opposite direction:

19. [156]

    I agree with his Honour’s analysis and reject the Appellant’s contention that the primary judge erred in finding that the two messages did not evidence a lapse in Amy’s memory or testamentary capacity. The Appellant suggested that Amy referred to the “ping pong” breathing apparatus twice within three minutes, suggesting a failure of memory, with the repetition said to exist by reason of the following statements made three minutes apart:

20. [157]

    The first voice message made reference to the apparatus as “the balloon”; and the second voice message made reference to the apparatus as the “ping pong” equipment. Far from being repetitious, Amy was pointing out the amusing verbal correspondence between the colloquial name for the machine and the names of two of the Chat Thai staff. The function of the second message was to tell Ping and Pong that the name of the apparatus (“Ping Pong”) matched their names – a detail that was omitted from the first message. This was hardly cogent evidence of a want of cognitive or testamentary capacity.

21. [158]

    No attempt was made in the written submissions to impugn the primary judge’s detailed reasoning leading to his conclusion that Pat had discharged his onus of proving that Amy had testamentary capacity as at the date of execution of the Thai Will on 24 June 2020. My own review of the evidence for the purposes of this appeal results in the same conclusion, essentially for the same detailed reasons given by the primary judge. Neither the written nor oral submissions on appeal advanced any persuasive reason for reaching the opposite conclusion. Although Amy was undoubtedly a very sick woman with her advanced cancer, her activities at the time (including near contemporaneous communications relating to her business), the largely unchallenged testimonial evidence from her solicitor, her brother and two witnesses all supported his Honour’s conclusion. That evidence included Amy’s articulated reasons for altering her will in the manner in which she did. This material collectively outweighed the medical evidence that was before the primary judge and, to the extent there was an attempt to impugn Bob’s evidence, the primary judge’s benefit in assessing that evidence favourably must also be taken into account.

22. [159]

    For these reasons, grounds 1 and 2 must be rejected.

Ground 3: Knowledge and approval of the contents of the Thai Will

1. [160]

   The Appellant contended that the primary judge erred in holding that Amy knew and approved of the contents of the Thai Will and erred in holding that there were no circumstances arousing the Court's suspicion that the Thai Will did not have the testatrix’s consent.

2. [161]

   In the course of the hearing of the appeal, Mr Ellison acknowledged that, although the maker of “a will, rational and duly executed, is presumed to have knowledge and approval”, there “were enough gaps or absences of instructions to give rise to a suspicion, not in the nefarious sense, but a suspicion such that knowledge and approval had to be positively proved”. Mr Ellison was pressed to identify what the suspicious circumstances upon which he relied were. None was identified as such in either his client’s pleading or in the submissions on appeal. In his oral reply submissions, Mr Ellison pointed to certain references in the written submissions at first instance by way of purported identification of the “suspicious circumstances”. These references were as follows:

3. [162]

   It will be observed that the first of these passages does not identify any suspicious circumstances and the assertion of “apparent irrationality of the will on its face” is simply not borne out. The second passage must be mistaken insofar as it refers to “the factors which are described in paragraph 1” (as none were listed) and it may reasonably be inferred that the reference was in fact to the first passage set out above. The balance of the paragraph does not identify suspicious circumstances so much as posited weaknesses in Pat’s evidence. The same observation applies in respect of the third of the passages identified.

4. [163]

   As a matter of good practice as well as procedural fairness, where a party seeks to contend that “suspicious circumstances” surrounded the making of a will, those circumstances ideally should be identified by way of pleading and or particulars so that they can be appropriately addressed by evidence and submissions. Regard should be had to the fact that suspicious circumstances is a term of art with limits to its scope: Mekhail v Hana [2019] NSWCA 197 at [170]-[171] (Mekhail).

5. [164]

   The significance of raising “suspicious circumstances” surrounding the execution of a will is as recorded by the primary judge in the passage reproduced at [136] above. In the absence of such circumstances, knowledge and approval of the contents of the will is presumed. Noting that mechanical approaches have long been rejected in this area of the law (Mekhail at [137]), it must be recalled that the primary judge expressly rejected the notion that the circumstances surrounding the Thai Will were suspicious at PJ [248] because:

6. [165]

   No meaningful attack was made upon the primary judge’s conclusion that there were no suspicious circumstances so as to lead to rebuttal of the presumption. In addition to the reasons identified by the primary judge in support of his conclusion that there were no suspicious circumstances, there was also evidence which the primary judge accepted that it was Amy herself who initiated the change to the will (see [29]-[30] above) and who gave her reasons for doing so to Bob, thereby highlighting her understanding of its effect: see [33], [117]-[119] above.

7. [166]

   As noted at [10] above, the third ground of appeal inverts the proper order of analysis by subordinating the challenge to the primary judge’s finding that there were no suspicious circumstances to the challenge to his conclusion that Amy knew and approved of the contents of the will.

8. [167]

   The underlying assertion of suspicious circumstances by the Appellant was exiguous, at best. Amy had been a successful businesswoman. She considered that her daughter was successful in her own right, and, on the evidence which the primary judge accepted, did not want her son in law to have a continuing role in the business. That was her prerogative but it was more than just a question of taste or even cultural or personal prejudice: the primary judge referred to Matt’s candid agreement that, “by the end of 2019, he had formed the view that the Chat Thai business model was outdated, ineffective and unproductive and that he raised those sorts of matters with Amy”: PJ [228]. Amy disagreed. The primary judge accepted the evidence that “on the day that she executed her will, Amy explained to Ms Srisomboon that ‘Pat will look after everything and everyone. He helped me at the beginning and knows what I want’”: PJ [225] (emphasis added). She had given a similar explanation to both Bob and Mr Kasemnate in language which quelled any doubt as to her capacity or her knowledge as to what she was doing and the reasons for it: see [117]-[119] above. She wanted her son to have control of the business, referred to that matter to Bob personally and in her recorded audio message to Chat Thai staff and indeed, facilitated the transfer of power by effecting the transfer of the shareholding to Pat through Bob, prior to her death and a week after executing the Thai Will: see [6], [42]-[43] above. Nor was there anything unusual or suspicious in Bob assisting her in preparing the Thai Will. The evidence was that he had assisted her closely in business transactions.

9. [168]

   The present case differs markedly from cases where the evidence revealed a prospective beneficiary encouraging the alteration of an existing will often at a time of extreme old age. The primary judge referred in this regard to Barry v Butlin [1838] 12 ER 1089 at 1091; see also, for example, Mekhail at [131]. On the evidence in the present case, neither Pat nor Palisa was aware of the change of will, and Amy’s brother Bob was not a beneficiary. Moreover, the primary judge reasonably accepted that Amy was in control of her faculties and this is most clearly seen in the messages she sent to her colleagues, Palisa and Ms Kruahong as reproduced at [46]-[49] above.

10. [169]

    In any event, the primary judge’s conclusion that Amy did know and approve of the contents of the Thai Will was sound such that, even if the Appellant had been able to point to some circumstances arousing suspicion, the Respondents discharged the onus they bore. The primary judge accepted Mr Kasemnate’s evidence that, when he met with Amy at the hospital to discuss the creation of her Thai Will, she was “able to communicate well and was in a good mood”, and “she clearly conveyed her instructions for her new will and did not appear confused”. As also noted above at [131], the primary judge held (at PJ [239]) that:

11. [170]

    In that context, the primary judge made reference to Zorbas extracted at [130] above.

12. [171]

    The Appellant argued that his Honour erred in finding that Mr Kasemnate’s evidence could be characterised in the way conceived of in Zorbas because: first, it was of “very limited utility” in resolving the question of Amy’s capacity at the time the Thai Will was executed; and, secondly, Mr Kasemnate purportedly asked Amy no questions directed at the ascertainment of her capacity. This submission overlooks the primary judge’s unchallenged finding that Amy met with Mr Kasemnate earlier in June 2020 and explained to him that she wanted to revise her will and her reasons for doing so: PJ [216].

13. [172]

    In any event, Mr Kasemnate’s evidence formed only part of the evidence relied upon by the primary judge to satisfy himself of Amy’s testamentary capacity. His Honour referred, for example, to the fact that “on the day that she executed her will, she explained to the two witnesses that she had cancer and did not have much time left; that she had previously made a will; and that she now wished to update that will.” The failure to have proper regard to the whole body of evidence upon which his Honour drew to reach his conclusions was a general weakness of the Appellant’s written submissions. Questions of testamentary capacity will necessarily be resolved by reference to the universe of evidence before the Court. In Zorbas, Hodgson JA said at [65] that the “criteria in Banks v Goodfellow [(1870) LR 5 QB 549]… are matters for commonsense judicial judgment on the basis of the whole of the evidence”.

14. [173]

    His Honour’s conclusion that he was comfortably satisfied that Pat discharged his onus of establishing that Amy had testamentary capacity when she executed the Thai Will on 24 June 2020 was based upon the five matters referred to at [114] ff. No effective challenge was made to any of the primary judge’s close reasoning in this regard. For this reason, coupled with the fact that no suspicious circumstances were established and, in truth, were only raised exiguously, ground 3 of the appeal must be rejected.

Ground 4: Declining to permit the service of further supplementary reports

1. [174]

   Although ground 4 states that the primary judge erred in declining to permit the Appellant to serve supplementary reports of Dr Dua and Professor Ogden, his Honour’s ruling was only in respect of a supplementary report of Professor Ogden. As at the date of his Honour’s rejection of that report, Dr Dua had not prepared a supplementary report, although he had been instructed to do so.

2. [175]

   The primary judge’s decision not to permit the service of a supplementary report of Professor Ogden was made on 25 October 2023, the third day of the trial. His Honour’s reasons for refusing to permit the service of supplementary evidence at that point in the trial have been referred to at [107] above.

3. [176]

   Mr Ellison candidly accepted that Professor Ogden’s report “could've been prepared or obtained much earlier, but it wasn’t” and that “it was open to his Honour to do what he did, we just say that in the circumstances there was no prejudice.”

4. [177]

   The primary judge was confronted by a late and unsatisfactorily explained attempt to lead further expert evidence in the middle of a trial. He accepted the submission of senior counsel for Pat that he was prejudiced and, as Mr Ellison fairly conceded, it was open to the primary judge to do what he did. What his Honour did was also consistent with s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and he was best placed to make a discretionary assessment on the application before him to lead additional evidence mid-way through the trial.

5. [178]

   This ground of appeal must be rejected.

Conclusion

1. [179]

   For the above reasons, the appeal should be dismissed with costs.

2. [180]

   LEEMING JA: I have had the considerable advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of the Chief Justice. I agree with the orders he proposes, and with his Honour’s reasons on grounds 1, 2 and 4. The following elaboration of aspects of ground 3 does not repeat and assumes familiarity with those reasons.

3. [181]

   As the Chief Justice observes, the assertion of “suspicious circumstances” at trial was exiguous as best. The pleaded case made no allegation of suspicious circumstances, and the challenge to knowledge and approval was entirely dependent upon the challenge to capacity which in turn was based on the advanced stage of the testatrix’s cancers and the treatment she was receiving for them. If, as the statement of claim presaged, further particulars were provided, they were not in the appeal books, although it is possible that they existed but were not tendered.

4. [182]

   The written opening mentioned “suspicious circumstances”, but not so as to point out anything suspicious in the sense of this term of art, as opposed to asserted weaknesses in the defendant’s evidence. By the time of closing submissions, the plaintiff had ceased to rely on suspicious circumstances, either in writing or in oral address. The defendant had supplied a written submission which maintained that “[t]here is little in the circumstances surrounding the preparation of the 2020 will that excites suspicion”. Defence counsel’s oral submissions adopted the same approach.

5. [183]

   In those circumstances, insofar as ground 3 complains about a failure to find suspicious circumstances, no foundation for that complaint was laid at the trial.

6. [184]

   Further, I respectfully agree with the Chief Justice’s observation at [163] that if a contention is to be advanced that there were “suspicious circumstances”, then it should be pleaded or particularised or otherwise communicated well in advance of the trial, both as a matter of procedural fairness and because it will inform the decisions made as to the appropriate investigations and service of evidence. (It may also potentially inform the exercise of a discretion as to costs.) This accords with what was said in Dedakis v Deligiannis; The estate of Rebecca Deligiannis (also known as Rebeka Deligiannis) [2024] NSWSC 1018 at [11]-[13], to the effect that the significance of the doctrine of “suspicious circumstances” in a court determining probate in the absence of a jury at a trial in which all relevant evidence has been advanced can be over-stated. I concluded:

7. [185]

   The trial giving rise to the present appeal was one where there was a full exchange of evidence on testamentary capacity. The result was that the position accorded with the position stated by Williams J in Bull v Fulton (1942) 66 CLR 295 at 343; [1942] HCA 13, “[u]sually the evidence is such that the question upon whom the onus of proof lies is immaterial”. As the reasons of the Chief Justice explain, the primary judge undertook a review of all relevant evidence which bore upon the knowledge and approval of the testatrix, and nothing said in this appeal discloses error in the conclusion that his Honour reached.

8. [186]

   MITCHELMORE JA: I agree with the Chief Justice.