Bassett v Bassett

In *Bassett v Bassett*, the appeal concerned a family provision claim brought by an adult son, Geoff, against his deceased parents' estate. The primary judge had found that adequate provision had not been made for Geoff's proper maintenance and advancement in life. The appeal also involved issues relating to costs, specifically concerning offers of compromise made under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in her conclusion that Geoff had not received adequate provision from the estate. This involved considering the extent to which Geoff's receipt of significant benefits from his parents during their lifetime, described as an "early inheritance," should be weighed against his current needs. Furthermore, the court had to assess how an anticipated adverse costs liability from a separate, non-family provision claim should influence the analysis of whether the provision made for Geoff was adequate. The court also considered the application of rule 42.14(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) regarding costs orders following offers of compromise.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the primary judge had erred in her assessment. The court reasoned that the substantial benefits Geoff had already received constituted an "early inheritance" and were significant in the context of the overall provision made for him. The court also considered the impact of the potential costs liability from other proceedings. In relation to costs, while the respondents (Merilyn and Bruce) had obtained a judgment no less favourable than their offers of compromise, the court exercised its discretion under rule 42.14(2) to order otherwise.

The Court of Appeal ordered that Geoff's family provision claim be dismissed. Geoff was ordered to pay the Estate's costs of the family provision and estoppel claims up to 28 June 2019, with no order as to costs thereafter. Merilyn and Bruce were to be indemnified from their respective shares of the Estate for their costs of defending Geoff's claims, excluding Sue's share. Merilyn and Bruce were also ordered to pay Geoff's costs of a First Cross-Claim on the ordinary basis, without indemnity from the Estate. The application for leave to cross-appeal was dismissed with costs.