Australian Heirs Challenge Israeli Will Over Conflicting Queensland Estate

Result: NIS 3.68M Israeli estate distributed under Israeli will · Timeline: 4 months (Family Court proceeding) · Challenge: Competing Australian and Israeli wills, each formally valid under its own law · Authority: Inheritance Registrar (Rasham HaYerushot), Tel Aviv Family Court · Financial Impact: NIS 3.2M apartment and NIS 480,000 in accounts transferred to surviving spouse; Queensland will held inapplicable to Israeli assets

Background

A dual Israeli-Australian citizen died in Tel Aviv in early 2023, after dividing his adult life between Sydney and Israel for more than two decades. His Israeli estate consisted of a Tel Aviv apartment worth approximately NIS 3.2 million and bank and brokerage accounts totalling NIS 480,000. His Australian estate — a Sydney property and a substantial superannuation balance — was handled separately by an executor in Queensland.

In 2018, he had signed a formal Israeli will witnessed by two Israeli advocates and registered with the Inheritance Registrar (Rasham HaYerushot). That will left his entire Israeli estate to his second wife and contained an explicit clause revoking all prior testamentary instruments.

His three adult children from a first marriage, all living in Australia, presented a Queensland will from 2011. That document — signed before two witnesses and a notary in Brisbane, and fully valid under Queensland succession law — allocated the deceased's global estate in equal shares among his children.

The Challenge

The Inheritance Registrar received two competing applications: a will execution order (tzav kiyum tzava'a) on behalf of the second wife, and an objection from the three children relying on the earlier Australian document. Under Section 67 of the Succession Law 1965, when will disputes are filed at the Registrar, the matter must be referred to the Family Court for adjudication. The Registrar has no discretion to resolve it.

The children's argument ran in two directions. First, they contended that the revocation clause in the 2018 Israeli will — "I hereby revoke all prior wills and testamentary instruments" — was ambiguous as to whether it extended to foreign-law instruments executed in Australia under Queensland law. Second, they relied on Section 137(2) of the Succession Law 1965, which recognises a foreign will as formally valid in Israel if it satisfies the formal requirements of the country where it was made, the testator's nationality, or his domicile at the time of signing. The 2011 Queensland will passed all three tests.

In Practice: Under Section 67 of the Succession Law 1965, the Inheritance Registrar (Rasham HaYerushot) must refer all contested will applications to the Family Court. The Tel Aviv Family Court listed a preliminary hearing within six weeks of referral. An interim injunction freezing the Israeli apartment and all bank accounts — totalling NIS 3.68 million — was obtained within ten days of filing. Lifting that injunction, if the case had gone against the second wife, would have required a separate court application adding at least six to eight weeks to any eventual distribution.

What We Did

Acting for the second wife, we filed a legal memorandum with the Family Court advancing three arguments.

The first was the lex situs rule. Under Israeli conflict-of-laws principles, the law of the country where immovable property is located governs its disposition on death. The Tel Aviv apartment is Israeli immovable property. Israeli succession law therefore applies to its inheritance regardless of the country in which a testamentary instrument was made or the law under which it was executed. That principle is well-established in Israeli case law and has been applied consistently by the Family Courts.

The second argument addressed the revocation directly. Section 26 of the Succession Law 1965 provides that a later will revokes an earlier one to the extent of any inconsistency between them. The 2018 Israeli will was signed seven years after the Queensland document. It contained a clear, universal revocation clause. There was no basis for reading the phrase "all prior testamentary instruments" as being limited to prior Israeli wills — the plain language admitted no such restriction, and the deceased had consulted an Israeli advocate specifically to create a new testamentary arrangement for his Israeli assets.

The third piece was a legal opinion from a Queensland solicitor confirming that under Australian choice-of-law principles, Israeli law — as the lex situs — governs disposition of the Tel Aviv apartment, and that an Australian court administering the estate would apply Israeli succession law to the Israeli property. That opinion was submitted as evidence of foreign law under the applicable procedural rules.

Obtaining and certifying the translated Queensland will also required a certified translation from English to Hebrew, a process described more fully in our guide to contesting an Israeli will from abroad.

The Outcome

The Tel Aviv Family Court delivered its judgment four months after the initial hearing. The court upheld the Israeli will in full, applying the lex situs rule and finding that the 2018 revocation clause was unambiguous and comprehensive. The children's argument that the clause was limited to prior Israeli wills was rejected.

The second wife received the Tel Aviv apartment, valued at NIS 3.2 million at the time of transfer, and the Israeli bank and brokerage accounts totalling NIS 480,000. The 2011 Queensland will continued to govern the Australian estate, which was administered separately in Sydney. Total legal costs across Israeli and Australian proceedings came to approximately NIS 95,000.

The three children received independent advice from an Australian succession law firm. They did not appeal the Israeli ruling.

Key Takeaways

What this case illustrates for Australian heirs and estate planners dealing with dual-estate situations:

1. The lex situs rule governs Israeli immovable property. Israeli succession law determines who inherits a Tel Aviv apartment regardless of what a foreign will says, regardless of the testator's nationality, and regardless of the formal validity of the foreign instrument under its own law.
2. A later Israeli will with a universal revocation clause overrides earlier foreign wills for Israeli assets. Section 26 of the Succession Law 1965 contains no carve-out for foreign-law instruments. Heirs who present an earlier foreign will must show either that the revocation clause does not apply to it or that the Israeli will was invalid.
3. Family Court referral under Section 67 is automatic and non-discretionary. Once competing applications reach the Inheritance Registrar, the Registrar cannot resolve the dispute — it goes to the Family Court. Interim injunctions are routine and can freeze an estate for months.
4. Australian estate planners advising dual-citizen clients should flag the lex situs issue. A dual-estate client who signs a comprehensive Australian will without a separate Israeli instrument may inadvertently create a conflict that their Australian beneficiaries cannot win. The cleaner approach is a dedicated Israeli will for Israeli assets, with a clear revocation of any prior documents.

---

Facing a Similar Situation?

If you are an Australian heir — or a surviving spouse — dealing with competing wills over an Israeli estate, the outcome depends heavily on the sequence of the instruments, the precise wording of any revocation clause, and the Israeli conflict-of-laws analysis under Section 137 of the Succession Law 1965.

Contact us for a confidential consultation about your Israeli inheritance matter.