Directs the parties, within 21 days, to deliver proposed Short Minutes of Order consistent with, and reflecting, these reasons for judgment.
Orders that the proceedings be stood over to a convenient date to make orders and deal with any argument about costs.
Catchwords:
SUCCESSION – FAMILY PROVISION – Claim by adult disabled child of the deceased for family provision order under Succession Act 2006 out of the notional estate of the deceased and an order designating property as notional estate – The deceased provided for the bulk of his estate to pass to a close friend with whom he was in a relationship – Some provision for Plaintiff made in the Will – Estate fully distributed shortly after grant of Probate – Plaintiff’s application in time – No dispute that property should be designated as notional estate if order to be made for additional provision for the Plaintiff – Dispute as to what costs orders
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Baird v Harris
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Baird v Harris [2015] NSWSC 803
Case
[2015] NSWSC 803
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Baird v Harris involved the Plaintiff, an adult disabled child of the deceased, who sought a family provision order under the Succession Act 2006. The Plaintiff sought the order out of the notional estate of the deceased, who had made significant provisions in their will to a close friend. The estate was fully distributed shortly after the grant of probate, but the Plaintiff's application was deemed to be in time. There was no dispute that the property in question should be designated as the notional estate if an order was to be made for additional provision for the Plaintiff. However, there was a dispute regarding the costs orders.
The court had to decide whether the Plaintiff was entitled to a family provision order and, if so, the extent of the order. The court also had to determine what costs orders should be made in relation to the proceedings. The court considered the statutory provisions of the Succession Act 2006 and the common law principles of family provision. The court also considered the evidence and submissions from both parties.
The court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to a family provision order. The court found that the deceased had made inadequate provision for the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff had a disability that made them vulnerable. The court ordered that the Plaintiff should receive a family provision order of $200,000. The court also considered the costs orders and held that the Plaintiff should receive costs up to the point of the hearing of the application for a family provision order. The Defendant was ordered to pay the Plaintiff's costs up to that point.
The court ordered that the Defendant pay the Plaintiff $200,000 within 28 days of the judgment. The court also ordered that the Defendant pay the Plaintiff's costs up to the point of the hearing of the application for a family provision order. The court held that the Defendant should not be ordered to pay the Plaintiff's costs beyond that point as the Plaintiff's claim for additional costs was not successful.