Bartlett v Coomber

This case concerned an appeal to the Supreme Court of New South Wales regarding an order made under the *Family Provision Act 1982* (NSW). The dispute arose from an agreement to compromise a family provision claim brought by Ms Coomber, the respondent, against the estate of the deceased. The appellant, Mr Bartlett, was not a party to the original compromise agreement but sought to challenge the court's approval of it.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in approving the compromise agreement and making an order based upon it, and whether the provision made for Ms Coomber was adequate for her maintenance, education, and advancement in life, having regard to the circumstances at the time of the order. The Court also considered the scope of the court's discretion under sections 7 and 9 of the *Family Provision Act 1982* when approving compromise agreements in family provision claims, particularly when a party to the appeal was not an original party to the compromise.

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, reasoned that a court may approve a compromise agreement if it falls within the range of possible outcomes of a contested hearing. The Court found that the appellant had not demonstrated that the compromise agreement was so far outside this range as to suggest an extraneous purpose. The judges emphasised that a party repenting of a compromise, or a non-party like the appellant challenging it, was insufficient grounds to overturn the primary judge's decision, especially when the primary judge had considered the relevant factors under the Act, including the needs of the eligible person and the circumstances surrounding the deceased's estate.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.