He was a decorated hero of World War II. Norman William Maddock signed up to fight at 17, served in Tobruk, and was captured during the fierce Battle of Crete before making a daring escape back to Allied lines. In his later years, however, this tenacious soldier faced a different kind of battle—one of failing health, vulnerability, and ultimately, a fight for his legacy. His story, culminating in the Victorian Supreme Court case of Re Maddock; Bailey v Maddock [2022] VSC 346, has become a tragic and powerful lesson for every estate planning solicitor in Australia. At its heart is the story of a trusted friend—a Melbourne hairdresser—and a family home that became the centre of a bitter legal dispute.
The Story: A Hero’s Decline and a Beneficiary’s Rise
After a long and remarkable life, Norman Maddock’s health began to fail him. By his late 90s, he suffered from a litany of illnesses, including a recent stroke, and had been diagnosed with a psychotic disorder, paranoid ideation, and cognitive difficulties. He was residing in an aged care facility, as was his wife of many years, Shirley, who was suffering from advanced dementia.
It was during this period of decline that his friend of 20 years, hairdresser Marcia Reynolds (née Bailey), became increasingly involved in his affairs. In the 15 months before he died, Mr. Maddock changed his will three times, with each iteration granting Ms. Reynolds more control and a greater share of his $3.6 million estate.
The changes were dramatic:
- The 2018 Will: Appointed Ms. Reynolds as one of three executors, with a bequest of $25,000. His wife Shirley was to receive $600,000, and his children were to receive 20% of the residue each.
- The 2019 Will: Appointed Ms. Reynolds as the sole executor, increased her personal gift to $75,000, and slashed his wife’s provision in half to $300,000.
- The 2020 Will: Just three months later, the final will delivered the most significant change. On top of her other entitlements, Ms. Reynolds was to receive the
$1 million Bentleigh East family home outright.
By the time of the court case, Ms. Reynolds and her partner had already taken possession of the house, living there rent-free for 17 months without proper authority. When she sought probate of the will that gifted her the family home, Mr. Maddock’s family lodged a caveat, sparking the legal battle.
The Judgment: A Court’s Rebuke and a Solicitor’s Failings
Justice McMillan ultimately dismissed the probate application, ruling that the war hero did not have the mental capacity to make his final will. The judgment is a systematic takedown of the professional conduct of the solicitor, Anthony Naughton, and the evidence provided by the GP, Dr. Andrew Batty.
The court reaffirmed the foundational test for testamentary capacity from Banks v Goodfellow (1870), which requires the will-maker to understand the nature of their act, the extent of their property, and their moral obligations to those they should provide for. Justice McMillan found Mr. Maddock failed this test, particularly as he mistakenly believed his estate was worth $6 million—nearly double its actual value—and did not properly appreciate his duty to his wife and children when gifting his primary asset to Ms. Reynolds.
The solicitor was criticised for:
- Taking instructions for the crucial 2020 will over the telephone, a practice the court deemed “highly problematic”.
- Failing to inquire about Mr. Maddock’s recent health, meaning he was unaware his client had suffered a stroke just weeks before.
- Not obtaining adequate medical evidence, with the judge specifically noting that the GP, Dr. Batty, “should have been aware of the deceased’s significant health issues, including bouts of depression, history of paranoid delusions and reduced cognitive abilities”.
Beyond the Courtroom: The Human Cost of Elder Abuse
The Maddock case provides a devastatingly clear picture of the real-world consequences of inadequate professional practice. The family’s fight didn’t end with the judgment. The court ordered Ms. Reynolds to pay significant legal costs, particularly as she had refused an earlier, “unreasonable” settlement offer of $75,000.
More painfully, the family was left to pick up the pieces of their lives, locked out of the home they had known for 67 years. As his son, Norm Maddock jnr., told The Age, “Not having access to the family home has made the grieving process more difficult”. He also flagged the family’s intention to investigate bank accounts that Ms. Reynolds had access to under her power of attorney for his late father. This highlights how the risk of financial elder abuse can become a traumatic reality when gatekeepers fail in their duties.
Best Practice for Victorian Solicitors After Maddock
This case screams a clear warning from the bench. To prevent such a tragic outcome and uphold professional duties, solicitors must adhere to these best practices:
- Insist on Face-to-Face and Private Meetings: Never take instructions for a significant will change from an elderly or vulnerable client over the phone. Always meet in person and alone.
- Employ the “Golden Rule”: When a client is elderly or ill, obtain a contemporaneous medical assessment of capacity from a practitioner, preferably a geriatrician, who understands the legal test in Banks v Goodfellow.
- Ask Probing, Open-Ended Questions: Your file notes are your shield. They must be immaculate, documenting the specific questions you asked to satisfy each limb of the Banks v Goodfellow test.
- Be a Guardian, Not Just a Scribe: Your duty is not merely to record instructions. You must be actively satisfied of capacity. If you have doubts, you must refuse to act.
- Act on Red Flags: Rapid will changes and the heavy involvement of a new major beneficiary are classic warnings that demand heightened professional skepticism and meticulous due diligence.
The story of Norman Maddock is a tragedy that should never have happened. He was a hero who deserved to have his final wishes respected and his family protected. The court’s decision in Re Maddock ensures that his case will serve as an enduring, if costly, lesson for the entire legal profession.
This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific estate planning matters, consult with qualified legal practitioners.