This group report will provide case study about Bridgewater v Leahy (1998) HCA 66. This is a High Court of Australia case to determine Neil York and Beryl York as the defendant and Leahy as the plaintiff. Leahy sued the defendant for challenge the legality of choice in the will of Bill York.
Bill York was a grazier, born in Wallumbilla and lived there all his life. He died in 1989. He had wife and four daughters, Leahy (the plaintiff) was one of Bill’s four daughters and he had a younger brother, Sam and Neil York (the defendant) was Sam’s youngest son and Bill’s nephew.
The report will be discussed by IRAC include the issues and fact, relevant law, argument and the conclusion of the case study.
1. Issues and fact:
The…show more content… It was unsuccessful because Jersey claims that the evidence suggests that Bill did not act under any influence from Neil and he followed his wishes.
• In the Court of Appeal, they continued to appeal about the transaction between Bill, Neil and Neil’s wife Beryl in 1988.They provided evidence that Bill did not know the real value of the property he sold to Neil for $150.000. The appeal was denied because the court held that it was not real evidence.
During the discussion before the transfer agreement between Bill and Neil was signed, Bill’s lawyer, Mr. Pack did not tell Bill he should seek independent advice. Bill had him by his doctor examined to confirm that he had enough sound mind and ability to make his own decisions.
Jersey J thinks that Bill is capable master of will and makes informed decisions. The evidence presented at the trial along with Jersey’s remarks shows that although Bill has sought independent advice, the end of result might be the same.
In Bridgewater v Leahy (1998) HCA 66 case, there are four major issues:
• The legality of choice in Bill 's will made in April 1985 was given in the plaintiffs ' appeals.
• The contract of transfer was signed between Bill and Neil, was this unconscionable contracts?
• Would be Neil forced to pay the difference amount that Bill had accepted forgiven under the deed in 1988 for the appellants?
• Bill York did not have independent legal advice from other