Meoli v Romero

[2026] NSWSC 973

Supreme Court of NSW

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. SUCCESSION — Wills, probate and administration — Whether deceased knew and approved contents and effect of codicil — Construction of will and codicil where ambiguity — Whether codicil carried out the intentions of the deceased — No question of principle

Where a codicil gifts shares in the same number and companies as a prior will gift to a different beneficiary but does not expressly revoke the earlier gift, and extrinsic evidence (admissible under s 32 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) due to ambiguity) establishes the testator intended both gifts to operate, the codicil is construed as supplementary rather than substitutionary.
A solicitor's claimed 'clearest recollection' of instructions was rejected where it was unsupported by contemporaneous file notes, internally inconsistent, and contradicted by the solicitor's own earlier written responses — the court applied established principles on the fallibility of memory after a substantial passage of time.
Suspicious circumstances arising from multiple erroneous iterations of a codicil were held not to displace knowledge and approval where the final iteration conformed to the testator's own handwritten amendments to the prior iteration and was consistent with his demonstrated intentions.