DIY Wills and Online Templates: A Recent NSW Supreme Court Warning

James Michos

Oct 26

3 min read

A home-made will can be legally valid yet still leave a family with an expensive dispute about what it means. The recent Supreme Court of New South Wales decision in The Estate of Wade [2026] NSWSC 1225 shows how wording copied into an online template can create uncertainty over an entire residuary estate.

The decision was delivered by Justice Meek on 6 October 2026. It concerned a will made in 2018 with help from the deceased’s nephew, who was not a lawyer and used an online form precedent.

What caused the dispute?

The deceased left $5,000 to each of his three sons and $200,000 to his daughter, Dianne. He then left the residue of his estate to Dianne if she survived him by more than 30 days, with a substitute gift to his nephew if she did not.

Immediately below the nephew’s name, the will stated in bold capitals that the gift was “for the purpose of” providing appropriate care for the deceased’s wife.

The deceased’s wife died before him. After his death, two sons argued that the care wording qualified the whole residuary gift. On their case, the gift failed and the residue passed under intestacy rules. Dianne argued that she received the residue absolutely.

The estate inventory recorded assets of approximately $3.8 million, mainly comprising a residence and other land at Murwillumbah. The meaning of a few words therefore had major financial consequences.

What did the Court decide?

The Court held that Dianne was entitled to the residue absolutely and that there was no intestacy of the residue. Read in the context and structure of the will, the care wording applied to the substitute gift to the nephew, not to Dianne’s primary entitlement.

The case also concerned rectification under section 27 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). That provision allows a court to rectify a will if a clerical error was made or the will does not give effect to the will-maker’s instructions.

Because the Court resolved the dispute by interpreting the will, rectification was unnecessary. Justice Meek nevertheless indicated that rectification would not have been granted: the evidence of the deceased’s instructions was not sufficiently reliable to provide the required clear and convincing proof.

Why formatting did not solve the problem

The parties relied on the will’s layout, bolding, capital letters and punctuation. The Court cautioned against placing too much weight on formatting where a layperson has used an online precedent. Some formatting had been copied from the template and had not been applied consistently.

The lesson is simple: bold type and headings cannot cure uncertain legal language. Expressions such as “for the purpose of”, “on condition that” or “to look after” may create a binding trust or condition, express only a wish, or affect a gift in another way. The result depends on the words and context.

Practical steps when making or reviewing a will

A properly prepared will should:

state clearly who receives the residue and whether the gift is absolute;
distinguish a binding obligation from a non-binding wish;
provide workable substitute beneficiaries;
address what happens if a beneficiary or intended recipient of care dies first;
use consistent defined terms and structure; and
be supported by contemporaneous instructions and file notes.

Wills should also be reviewed after a death, separation, new relationship, major asset change or other significant family event.

The daughter ultimately succeeded in this case, but only after Supreme Court proceedings. Careful drafting and reliable records can substantially reduce the risk that a family must ask a court to reconstruct the will-maker’s intentions years later.