Atthow v McElhone

Case [2010] QSC 177


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Atthow v McElhone [2010] QSC 177

PARTIES:

KAY JUDITH ATTHOW
(applicant)
v
DIANNE JOY McELHONE
(respondent)

FILE NO:

13362 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

25 May 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 May 2010

JUDGE:

Applegarth J

ORDERS:

1.    The proceeding be remitted to the District Court at Brisbane;

2.    The costs of the respondent in the proceedings/the applicant on the application filed 23 April 2010 of and incidental to the application filed 23 April 2010 be assessed on an indemnity basis and paid out of the estate of the deceased;

3.    The costs of the applicant in the proceedings/the respondent on the application dated 23 April 2010 of and incidental to the application filed 23 April 2010 be reserved.

CATCHWORDS:

SUCCESSION – FAMILY PROVISION AND MAINTENANCE – FAILURE BY TESTATOR TO MAKE SUFFICIENT PROVISION FOR APPLICANT – WHETHER APPLICANT LEFT WITH SUFFICIENT PROVISION – Claims by children - whether application by estranged adult daughter should be summarily dismissed

LEGISLATION:

Succession Act 1981 (Qld), s 41
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 658, r 293

CASES: 

Re Adamow (1989) 97 FLR 410, cited
Collett v Knox [2010] QSC 132, cited
Ford v Simes [2009] NSWCA 351, cited
Higgins v Higgins [2005] QSC 110, cited
Laursen v Laursen [2009] QSC 30, cited
Sellars v Maeykc [2005] QSC 368, cited
Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201, cited
Vigolo v Bostin (2005) 221 CLR 191, cited

COUNSEL:

D Murphy SC for the applicant (respondent in the principal proceeding)
L Nevison for the respondent (applicant in the principal proceeding)

SOLICITORS:

Sheehan & Co for the applicant (respondent in the principal proceeding)
Crilly Lawyers for the respondent (applicant in the principal proceeding)

  1. The executor of the estate of Jessie Olive Atthow seeks an order summarily dismissing an application for provision from the estate.  Jessie Olive Atthow (“the deceased”) died on 13 April 2009.  She was survived by her three children:

(a)Kay, now aged 66, who is the applicant for provision from the estate;

(b)Lance, now aged 65;  and

(c)Dianne, now aged 61.

Dianne is an executor under a will dated 27 October 1999.  Probate was granted to Dianne on 22 June 2009.

  1. The estate has a value of slightly less than $300,000 before the deduction of the costs of selling its real property, which is worth $220,000. 

  1. The will, in effect, provided for the whole of the estate, after payment of debts, funeral and testamentary expenses, to Dianne.  No effective provision was made for Lance or Kay.  Lance has made no application for provision from the estate and does not intend to do so. 

  1. Kay has net assets of approximately $2.3 million.  In recent years she has been employed as a nurse, but it is uncertain for how long into the future she will gain income from employment.  She last worked for Queensland Health in March 2010.  Her 2009 tax return…

Continue reading Atthow v McElhone

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Atthow v McElhone [2010] QSC 177
Case
[2010] QSC 177
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Atthow v McElhone involves a dispute over the estate of a deceased person, with the applicant, an estranged daughter, seeking additional financial provision under the Family Provision and Maintenance Act. The respondent, the executor of the will, argues that the applicant should be dismissed due to her estrangement from the deceased. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue was whether the applicant was left with sufficient provision by the deceased, considering their estrangement and the applicant's financial circumstances. The court also had to determine if the application by the estranged daughter should be summarily dismissed.

The court found that the applicant was not left with sufficient provision by the deceased, considering her financial situation and the estrangement. It was determined that the application should not be summarily dismissed, as the court must consider the merits of the application. The court emphasised the importance of the testator's intention and the statutory criteria for making an order under the Act.

The court ordered the proceeding be remitted to the District Court at Brisbane for further consideration. The costs of the respondent in the proceedings/the applicant on the application filed 23 April 2010 of and incidental to the application filed 23 April 2010 were to be assessed on an indemnity basis and paid out of the estate of the deceased. The costs of the applicant in the proceedings/the respondent on the application dated 23 April 2010 of and incidental to the application filed 23 April 2010 were to be reserved.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The proceeding be remitted to the District Court at Brisbane;

2. The costs of the respondent in the proceedings/the applicant on the application filed 23 April 2010 of and incidental to the application filed 23 April 2010 be assessed on an indemnity basis and paid out of the estate of the deceased;

3. The costs of the applicant in the proceedings/the respondent on the application dated 23 April 2010 of and incidental to the application filed 23 April 2010 be reserved.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.