A signature at the bottom of a will can feel reassuringly final. The Estate of the late Wilma Annette Pusterla [2026] NSWSC 951 is a reminder that sometimes it is only the beginning of the enquiry.
Wilma Pusterla died in December 2023, leaving a net estate worth approximately $3 million, with her Willoughby home making up most of its value. Her wills between 2010 and 2020 had consistently provided for friends and charities. Under the 2020 will, her residuary estate was left to a close friend and six charities. Philip Jeffrey Beaumont Smith, the son of Pusterla’s late de facto partner, was named as a substitute executor but received no beneficial interest.
By 2023, things had changed. Pusterla was in her early 90s, frail, legally blind and living in residential care. Smith had become closely involved in her affairs and acted as her attorney and enduring guardian. There was evidence that Pusterla wanted him to receive her house. The new will, however, went considerably further: it gave Smith her entire estate.
Smith approached a solicitor to organise the document. The solicitor never took testamentary instructions directly from Pusterla, did not independently check that the proposed will reflected her wishes and did not send the draft to her. Smith later arranged for two colleagues who did not know Pusterla to witness the execution. The will was read aloud before she signed.
| Issue | What happened in Pusterla | Why it mattered |
| Earlier wills | Friends and charities had consistently benefited | The 2023 will marked a significant departure |
| Instructions | The solicitor dealt through Smith | Smith became the sole beneficiary |
| Expressed intention | Evidence suggested Pusterla wanted Smith to receive her house | The document instead gave him everything |
| Capacity | Pusterla had testamentary capacity | Capacity and knowledge and approval are different questions |
| Execution | The will was read aloud before signing | This did not resolve the Court’s concerns |
| Outcome | Probate of the 2023 will was refused | The 2020 will became the operative testamentary instrument |
The problem wasn’t testamentary capacity
That is one of the most interesting aspects of the case.
Pusterla did have testamentary capacity. Despite her age, physical frailty, blindness and memory difficulties, Williams J was satisfied that she retained the capacity necessary to make the relatively straightforward will in question.
The real problem was knowledge and approval.
Where a person with testamentary capacity duly executes a will, that can ordinarily support an inference that they knew and approved its contents. But suspicious circumstances can change the picture. Particular care is required where someone involved in procuring or preparing a will stands to receive a substantial benefit from it.
Here, there was plenty to make the Court look more closely. The solicitor had never spoken directly with Pusterla about what she wanted; the new will was dramatically different from her earlier arrangements; Smith received considerably more than the house she had spoken about leaving him; and the way the will was executed did not satisfactorily resolve those concerns. Reading it aloud shortly before Pusterla signed was not enough in the circumstances.
The Court therefore refused probate of the 2023 will. Letters of administration with the 25 August 2020 will annexed were granted to a nominated representative associated with one of the charitable beneficiaries. Importantly, the separate allegations of undue influence were not established.
There is also a limit to what Pusterla says. It does not mean that involving another person in communicating instructions automatically destroys a will, nor does it establish that every solicitor-client interaction must occur face-to-face. The real question is whether the evidence proves that the document genuinely reflected the will-maker’s own informed intentions.
Where valuable property is involved, a few questions become especially important: • Who actually gave the instructions? • Was a beneficiary involved in the process? • Did the solicitor independently confirm the will-maker’s wishes? • Does the final document match those wishes? • Was a major departure from earlier wills properly explored? • Is there a reliable record of how the instructions and execution occurred?
A will is more than a signature on paper. It is meant to capture someone’s final wishes, and the process used to establish those wishes can make all the difference.
Flash Conveyancing Advice
When estate property is being sold or transferred, don’t assume that having a copy of the will settles the question of authority. Check who is legally entitled to deal with the property, confirm the relevant probate or administration documents and make sure the title can be dealt with correctly. If the will is being challenged, obtain specialist probate advice before trying to move the property transaction forward.
Flash Conveyancing, led by Julian & Renee, specialises in property transactions throughout NSW. Estate conveyancing comes with an obvious complication: the registered owner has died, so someone else must establish the legal authority to deal with the property.
It is important, though, not to stretch Pusterla beyond what the Court actually decided. The judgment did not create a general rule that every property transfer previously completed under an invalid will automatically “collapses” or is simply reversed by NSW Land Registry Services. What happens to a particular dealing depends on the circumstances, the orders made and the relevant succession and property law. Pusterla itself determined which will could be admitted to probate.
For estate sales and transmissions, Flash Conveyancing can assist with the property side of the process, including checking title, reviewing the documents establishing the legal personal representative’s authority and coordinating the conveyance. Active will disputes, allegations of undue influence, contested probate and questions about executor liability may require separate advice from a succession-law specialist.
The dispute also had an expensive sequel. In a costs judgment delivered on 7 September 2026, the unsuccessful probate applicant was ordered to pay the charitable defendants’ costs, with indemnity costs applying after a rejected offer of compromise. Contested estates can consume more than time and family goodwill.
Julian and Renee personally oversee files as part of Flash Conveyancing’s boutique, human-led service. According to the practice’s own procedures, settlement payment directions are directly voice-verified, while confidential information is supported by offline local-storage measures.
Flash Conveyancing assists clients across Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong, as well as Blacktown, Hawkesbury, the Blue Mountains, The Hills, Hornsby and Parramatta. The practice also services Acacia Gardens, Angus, Arndell Park, Blacktown, Colebee, Glendenning, Glenwood, Grantham Farm, Kellyville Ridge, Kings Langley, Marsden Park, Melonba, Oakhurst, Parklea, Quakers Hill, Riverstone, Schofields, Seven Hills, Stanhope Gardens, Tallawong, The Ponds, Baulkham Hills, Beaumont Hills, Bella Vista, Castle Hill, Kellyville, Kenthurst, North Rocks, Northmead, Rouse Hill, Vineyard, Windsor, Annangrove, Box Hill, Cattai, Dural, Gables, Galston, Glenhaven, Glenorie, Maraylya, Middle Dural, Nelson, North Kellyville, Norwest and Winston Hills.
The enduring lesson from Pusterla is wonderfully simple: a signature matters, but so does the story behind it. When a home worth millions sits inside an estate, clear instructions, independent confirmation and a process that can withstand scrutiny may be what ultimately ensures the owner’s real wishes are carried out.
