Ian Wright

The applicant sought an order for directions and his appointment as Estate Trustee under a 2020 Will.

The respondent objected, alleging the deceased lacked testamentary capacity due to alcoholism and was subject to undue influence.

The respondent sought widespread production of the deceased's medical, legal, and financial records.

The court found that the respondent had not met the minimal evidentiary threshold required by Neuberger Estate v. York to compel proof in solemn form or order extensive productions at this stage.

The court adopted the applicant's proposed order for directions, allowing the respondent to file further evidence before determining if the threshold is met.

The moving party sought to prove the 2017 Will of her late father, which left the estate entirely to her and disinherited her two brothers.

The respondent brothers challenged the Will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity, failure to know and appreciate the contents, and undue influence by the moving party.

The court found that the drafting solicitor's evidence substantially answered the concerns regarding capacity and knowledge.

However, the court found a minimal evidentiary basis existed regarding undue influence due to the potential for domination in the parent-child relationship and conflicting evidence.

The court ordered the production of solicitor and financial records and adjourned the motion for directions.

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages for breach of a verbal contract regarding the extraction of aggregate from their gravel pit.

The defendants argued the claim was barred by the Limitations Act, 2002 and the doctrine of laches, asserting a 30-day payment term triggered the limitation period years prior.

The court rejected this defence, finding the agreement was for payment 'when paid,' creating a running balance.

The court granted judgment for the unpaid extractions against the corporate defendant but refused to pierce the corporate veil to hold the individual director personally liable.

A small set-off was granted for the defendants' counterclaim.