Automatic language translation
Our website uses an automatic service to translate our content into different languages. These translations should be used as a guide only. See our Accessibility page for further information.
2025/00234844
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
| 6/8/2025 | Appellant | Notice of Appeal (PDF, 1.5 MB) |
| 17/9/2025 | Appellant | Submissions (PDF, 2.5 MB) |
| 15/10/2025 | Respondent | Submissions (PDF, 696.7 KB) |
| 23/10/2025 | Appellant | Reply (PDF, 2.5 MB) |
SUCCESSION – on 16 August 2022, the late Colin Laurence Peek (the Deceased) died aged 79 – no formal will was found, but a note titled “Last Will of Colin L. Peek” was discovered on the deceased’s iPhone (the Note) – the informal will left most of his $10.3 million estate to the Deceased’s friend Mr Brad Wheatley, with smaller gifts (approximately $990,000) to his brother Mr Ronald Peek – Mr Wheatley applied for probate under s 8 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) – Mr Peek disputed the Note’s validity, claiming the Deceased died intestate and sought administration of the estate under s 129 of the Succession Act, as the sole surviving sibling – Mr Wheatley filed a cross-claim seeking declarations that the Note was valid and formed the will of the deceased – the primary judge was not satisfied that the Deceased intended that the Note, without more on his part, have present operation as his will – accordingly, Mr Peek was entitled to the relief sought in the statement of claim and the cross-claim was dismissed – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the deceased did not intend the for the Note to form his last will – whether the primary judge erred in not admitting the Note to probate – whether the primary judge erred in allowing extraneous or irrelevant matters to guide or affect his Honour’s decision making process.
Last updated: