In the Estate of Hendrik Philippus Berend Drent

[2026] QSC 210

Supreme Court of Queensland

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

Where multiple wills exist and a caveator is not a beneficiary under any of them, the caveator's interest derived solely from intestacy is insufficient to support a caveat unless there is a realistic prospect that all wills will be held invalid; following Gardiner v Hughes (2017) 54 VR 394, a prior unchallenged will standing between the disputed will and intestacy deprives the caveator of standing.
To the extent Re Russell [1986] 1 Qd R 131 suggests that a person interested on intestacy has standing to caveat a later will without challenging earlier wills under which they also take nothing, that approach is inconsistent with Gardiner v Hughes and should not be followed.
Evidence relied upon to raise doubt as to whether a grant of probate ought to be made under UCPR r 626(2) must rise above mere suspicion; hearsay accounts from unidentified persons and unsupported allegations of incapacity or undue influence are insufficient.