Undue Influence: Evidence to Save Before an Australian Will Contest

---

---

What undue influence means and how it differs from persuasion or lack of capacity

Undue influence in probate law is a narrow legal concept. The ALRC explains that courts look for coercion that overpowers the testator's independent judgement, not just the presence of influence or a close relationship between the will maker and a beneficiary. A son who visits his mother often and gently suggests she update her will is not automatically exercising undue influence. The question is whether her final decision was still genuinely her own.

This matters because persuasion is a normal part of family life and estate planning. Families talk about money, property and who should get what. That conversation becomes a legal problem only when it tips into coercion so strong that the will maker could not refuse.

Undue influence is also a different question from testamentary capacity. These two issues often get confused:

• Testamentary capacity asks whether the will maker understood what they were doing: the nature of a will, the extent of their assets and who might reasonably expect to benefit.
• Undue influence asks whether a mentally capable person was coerced into making decisions that were not truly their own.

A person can have full capacity and still be a victim of undue influence, and a person can lack capacity without anyone pressuring them at all. Courts treat these as separate grounds for challenging a will, each with its own evidence requirements.

Actual v presumed undue influence and the suspicious circumstances rule

Australian probate law traditionally requires the challenger to prove actual coercion. Unlike some other legal contexts, there is no automatic presumption of undue influence just because one person held power over another, even in close family or caring relationships.

That said, the law recognises a separate idea called "suspicious circumstances." When the way a will was prepared raises genuine doubt, such as a beneficiary drafting the will or being heavily involved in instructing the lawyer, the Victorian Law Reform Commission notes that courts may first require the person defending the will to prove the testator actually knew and approved its contents, before the challenger's undue influence claim is even considered.

Key points on how this works in practice:

• Suspicious circumstances do not prove undue influence on their own; they shift an earlier question onto the will's defenders.
• If knowledge and approval cannot be shown, the will may fail without the challenger needing to separately prove coercion.
• Outcomes remain highly fact dependent, varying case by case rather than following a fixed formula.

One finding worth noting: the Victorian Law Reform Commission's succession laws report observed that undue influence has historically been difficult to prove in Australian courts, though it suggested that since Nicholson v Knaggs [2009] VSC 64 it may be easier to prove in Victoria, and noted that approach has been applied in Western Australia. This is a trend, not a guarantee, and every case still turns on its own facts.

Common signs and red flags that suggest undue influence

Certain patterns tend to draw a court's attention more than others. None of these alone proves coercion, but together they can build a picture worth investigating.

1. Sudden or dramatic changes to beneficiaries. A will that suddenly favours a recent acquaintance or carer over long-standing family members, especially shortly before death, raises questions.
2. Isolation from family or friends. A will maker who became dependent on, or cut off by, a single caregiver or beneficiary is at higher risk of being pressured.
3. Beneficiary involvement in preparing the will. When the person who stands to gain also arranged the lawyer, gave instructions or was present during signing, courts take this seriously.
4. Unusual signing circumstances. Wills signed in a hospital, shortly before death, at an odd hour or without the usual witnesses can indicate haste or pressure.
5. No independent legal advice. A will maker who did not see a lawyer alone, or who used a document prepared by the beneficiary rather than a solicitor, loses an important safeguard.

The more of these factors present together, the more likely a court will scrutinise the will closely. A single late change to a will, by itself, rarely persuades a court that coercion occurred.

Pro Tip: If you notice several of these signs, write down dates, names and what you observed as soon as possible. Memories fade, and contemporaneous notes carry far more weight later.

What evidence helps prove undue influence in a probate claim

Undue influence claims succeed or fail on evidence, and the strongest cases rely on records made at the time, not recollections formed after a dispute begins. The ALRC notes that pressure to make a will has been cited as an example of potential elder abuse.

Documentary evidence often tells the clearest story. A prior will that left assets evenly among children, followed by a sudden version favouring one person, invites questions about what changed and why.

Witness testimony fills in the human context. Carers, neighbours, treating doctors and the solicitor who prepared the will can all speak to what they observed, including whether the testator seemed anxious, confused or reluctant.

Medical evidence matters for a different reason. Even when capacity is not in dispute, contemporaneous medical notes can show a testator's physical frailty, cognitive decline or emotional state at the exact time the will was signed, which helps a court assess how vulnerable they may have been to pressure.

Financial records sometimes reveal the most. Large transfers, new joint bank accounts or changes to power of attorney arrangements around the same time as a new will can corroborate other signs of coercion.

Practical steps to preserve evidence early:

• Request copies of all known wills and drafts from the solicitor or the executor.
• Write down contact details for anyone who witnessed the will or interacted with the testator at the relevant time.
• Obtain medical and financial records as soon as possible, since some records are only kept for a limited period.

Burden and standard of proof in probate contests

In Australian probate disputes, the person alleging undue influence carries the onus of proving it. The court does not assume coercion took place; the challenger must actively establish it with evidence.

The civil standard applies, meaning the challenger must prove their case on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. However, in deciding whether that standard is met, courts take into account the gravity of what is alleged. This is the principle from Briginshaw v Briginshaw, and in the states and territories that use the uniform Evidence Acts it is written into section 140 (for example, s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)). This means:

• The evidence needs to be convincing, not merely suggestive.
• Vague suspicion or a sense that something felt wrong is not enough on its own.
• Courts weigh the seriousness of the allegation against the strength and quality of the evidence presented.

What this means practically: challengers need cogent, credible proof, and records made at the time usually carry more weight than evidence reconstructed after the dispute arises. A diary entry written the week a will was signed is worth more than a statement written two years later recalling the same events from memory. This is why acting quickly to document concerns, rather than waiting, genuinely affects the strength of a claim.

What to do if you suspect undue influence, including caveats and timing

If you believe a will was made under pressure, acting quickly protects your options. Here is a practical sequence:

1. Preserve documents immediately. Gather copies of the will, any earlier wills, medical records and financial statements before they become harder to access.
2. Record witness details. Note down names and contact information for anyone who can speak to the circumstances around the will's creation or signing.
3. Consider lodging a caveat. A caveat stops a grant of probate being made in the ordinary way while concerns are investigated. In New South Wales, under rule 78.69 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970, a caveat takes effect when it is filed and, unless the court orders otherwise, lapses after six months. A caveat only works before a grant is made; once probate has been granted, a challenge generally means asking the court to revoke the grant.
4. Seek legal advice without delay. A lawyer experienced in probate disputes can assess whether your evidence supports a challenge and advise on the right court process for your state.
5. Prepare for the formal process. This typically involves filing affidavits, gathering expert reports (such as medical evidence on capacity), and may include disclosure of relevant documents. Some disputes resolve through negotiated settlement before reaching a hearing.

Procedures, forms and exact timeframes vary between states and territories, so check the probate registry for your relevant Supreme Court for the specific steps that apply to your situation.

How lawyers reduce the risk of later challenges

Good will drafting practice is one of the strongest defences against future disputes. The Victorian Law Reform Commission recommended guidelines for lawyers preparing wills, and the ALRC points to case law and professional guidance on frail or vulnerable clients. Together they describe safeguards such as:

• Taking detailed instructions from the will maker alone, without family members or potential beneficiaries present.
• Keeping detailed file notes of conversations and instructions.
• Asking questions that probe the will maker's own understanding of their assets, family and intentions.
• Enquiring about any previous wills and the reasons for changes.
• Taking particular care to confirm capacity where the will maker is frail or capacity may be in doubt.

These practices exist precisely because they create the kind of contemporaneous record that courts rely on if a will is challenged later.

Pro Tip: When discussing your will with a solicitor, ask that family members or beneficiaries wait outside during instructions. This simple step creates a clear record that the decisions were yours alone.

If you are arranging a will for yourself or helping an older relative, you can reasonably request these safeguards from any solicitor preparing the document.

Australian case examples of undue influence claims

Court decisions show how fact dependent these cases really are. In Victoria, Nicholson v Knaggs [2009] VSC 64 restated the test: the question is whether the will still represents the free, independent and voluntary will of the will maker, and the court looks at the effect of the influence rather than only the means used. The Victorian Law Reform Commission notes this may have made undue influence easier to prove in Victoria.

Able Australia Services v Yammas [2010] VSC 237 is cited by the Victorian Law Reform Commission on the suspicious circumstances rule. That rule can apply where a beneficiary is involved in making the will, for example by preparing it or taking the will maker to a lawyer, and it requires the person defending the will to prove the will maker knew and approved its contents.

Takeaways from these cases:

• Courts examine the whole pattern of circumstances, not a single fact in isolation.
• Who prepared the will and who was present at signing can shift what the defending party needs to prove.
• There is no shortcut: each case depends heavily on its own specific evidence.

An alternative: building a clear will before disputes can start

Many of the red flags above involve a will that was rushed or shaped by someone else. We built WillBuddy around a calmer approach: a guided process where you answer plain questions one at a time, at your own pace.

The will is drafted to match the requirements of your state or territory, and you can read every word of it for free before you pay anything. Once you are happy with it, you print and sign it with witnesses, just as the law requires. With the $39 a year plan, your will is kept in secure, encrypted storage while your plan is active, and if your circumstances change, the plan includes 50 AI edits a year so your will keeps reflecting your actual wishes rather than a decision made once and never revisited.

If your situation involves a blended family, a business or trust, assets overseas, or you think a challenge is likely, we recommend speaking with a lawyer rather than relying on a general drafting tool. For straightforward estates, check our Annual Access plan when you are ready to keep your will current and properly stored.

This article is general information, not a substitute for advice from a qualified lawyer. Consult a qualified legal professional about your own circumstances before acting on anything here.

FAQ

Is undue influence difficult to prove in an Australian will dispute?

Yes. The ALRC and the Victorian Law Reform Commission both note that undue influence has been difficult to prove, partly because the person alleging it must prove actual coercion, not just influence or a close relationship. Suspicion alone is not enough, and records made at the time usually carry more weight than later recollections.

Can someone stop their will being contested in Australia?

There is no way to make a will completely immune from challenge, but clear drafting reduces the risk significantly. Getting independent legal advice, documenting your reasons for decisions, and avoiding beneficiary involvement in preparing the will are all practical steps that strengthen a will against later disputes.

Who has the burden of proof for undue influence?

The person challenging the will carries the burden of proving undue influence occurred. The ALRC and the Victorian Law Reform Commission both confirm this onus sits with the person alleging it. The civil standard applies (the balance of probabilities), and courts take into account how serious the allegation is.

What counts as undue influence in a will?

Undue influence means coercion strong enough to overpower the will maker's own free judgement, rather than persuasion they were free to accept or reject. The ALRC explains that the focus is on whether the final decision was genuinely the testator's own, not simply whether someone tried to influence them.

Sources

Show the 2 sources

• The law's response | ALRC
• Succession laws report | Victorian Law Reform Commission

Start your will free at willbuddy.com.au and read it before you pay.

Recommended

• Will Requirements in Australia: Complete Legal Guide to Valid Wills 2025