Bates v Cooke

The applicant, Bates, sought provision from his mother’s estate. The deceased and her husband had made mirror wills, each leaving their estates to the other, and then equally to the applicant and his four siblings. The applicant claimed that despite having no immediate needs, provision should have been made for his retirement, and sought a notional estate order. The respondent was the executor of the deceased's estate.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in finding that there was little chance the stepfather would change his will, and whether the primary judge erred in rejecting the applicant's claim for provision. The court also considered whether the applicant should be precluded from claiming due to imprudent investment decisions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It was held that the primary judge had not erred in finding that there was little chance the stepfather would change his will, given the circumstances. Furthermore, the primary judge's rejection of the claim was upheld, with the court finding that the applicant had not demonstrated that adequate provision had not been made for his proper maintenance, education, and advancement in life. The applicant's imprudent investment decisions were a relevant consideration in assessing his claim.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.