High Court gives second life to battle over wills

In the same will, she left her jewellery and personal property to a group of friends, including Mr Nobarani.

Ms Mariconte was left with substantially less assets in the 2004 will – a jade Buddha pendant and gold chain. She was also named as one of the group of friends to receive jewellery and personal property, alongside Mr Nobarani.

Mr Nobarani had appeared before the NSW Supreme Court to challenge the 2013 handwritten will, however he was unrepresented, his defence was in disarray and he lost the case against Ms Mariconte. His attempt to appeal the decision in the NSW Court of Appeal was also unsuccessful.

'Substantial wrong or miscarriage'

In a unanimous ruling on Wednesday, the High Court said Mr Nobarani had an interest in challenging the 2013 will and he had been denied procedural fairness.

The Iranian doctor who came to Australia as a refugee had limited command of English and limited understanding of the court procedure or rules of evidence, the High Court found.

Given these factors, it was "unsurprising" Mr Nobarani's case was vague and disordered when he only had three business days to consider the relevant legal documents and prepare witnesses and evidence.

The court also rejected Ms Mariconte's argument that Mr Nobarani did not have an interest in the case because a share of personal property and jewellery was too insubstantial to amount to an interest.

The court said it was factually erroneous to assert the jewellery and personal possessions had no value.

"It is also legally erroneous to conclude that rights of low monetary value cannot amount to a legal interest," the court said.

The court found there was a "substantial wrong or miscarriage" of justice because Mr Nobarani could not cross-examine a significant witness – one of the witnesses to the 2013 will – about Ms McLaren's mental and physical condition when she wrote the will.

The court also noted this problem was compounded because the other witness to the 2013 will could not be located, as his address appeared to be a vacant building site.

The case will return to the NSW Supreme Court for a new trial.