Belfield v Belfield and 2 Ors - [2011] NSWSC 1146

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Belfield v Belfield and 2 Ors [2011] NSWSC 1146
Hearing dates: 22/08/11, 23/08/11
Decision date: 19 October 2011
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Associate Justice Macready
Decision:
I dismiss the proceedings and subject to any submissions, I order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs.

Catchwords: WILLS AND ESTATES - family provision claim - time extended for application to be made - - whether deceased had entered into a prescribed transaction - claimant son had settled family disputes prior to deceased's death - no entitlement to make a claim.
Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919
Family Provision Act 1982
Probate and Administration Act 1898
Testator's Family Maintenance and Guardianship of Infants Act 1916
Cases Cited: Basto v Basto (NSWSC, 8 September 1989, unreported)
Cetojevic v Cetojevic [2006] NSWSC 431
D'Apice v Gutkovich - Estate of Abraham (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 1333
De Winter v Johnstone (NSWCA, 23 August 19995, unreported)
Doyle v Blake (1804) 2 Sch & Lef 231
Estate of Hodges Deceased, Re; Shorter v Hodges (1988) 14 NSWLR 698
Fancett v Ware (NSWSC, 3 June 1986, unreported)
Guskett (deceased), Re (1947) VLR 211
Massie v Laundy (NSWSC, 7 February 1986, unreported)
Kerr v Badran; Estate of Badran [2004] NSWSC 735
Kilbee v Sneyd (1828) 2 Moll 186
King v Hudson [2009] NSWSC 1013
Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd v Fairlie-Cunninghame (1993) 32 NSWLR 377
Phillips v Quinton (NSWSC, 31 March 1988, unreported)
Singer v Berghouse [1994] HCA 40
Timbury v Coffee (1941) 66 CLR 277
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Richard Edgar Home Belfield (plaintiff)
Charles Home Belfield (first defendant)
Kialami Pty Limited (second defendant)
Taloye Holdings Pty Limited (third defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr RD Wilson for plaintiff
Mr L Ellison SC for defendants
Solicitors:
Abbot & Co for plaintiff

File Number(s): 2010/231284

Judgment

This is an application under the Family Provision Act 1982 ('the Act') in respect of the estate of the late Madge Clarendon Belfield who died on 16 July 2004 aged 95 years. The deceased was survived by her sons Richard Belfield (the plaintiff) and Charles Belfield (the defendant). Her husband, Edgar Belfield, predeceased her.

Last will of the deceased

The deceased made her last will 5 February 1990, by which she gave her estate to her youngest son Charles and appointed him executor

Assets in the estate

The deceased left no actual estate. The plaintiff sought an order to have 20 shares in Kialami Pty Ltd designated as notional estate. The third defendant Taloye Holdings Pty Ltd held those 20 shares in Kialami Pty Ltd on trust for the C H Belfield No 1 Family Trust. This shareholding represents the deceased's 40 percent interest in the 2,602 hectare farming property known as Kialami, which is owned by the second defendant. Tremain Prowse Valuers valued the Kialami property on 25 August 2010 at $5,670,000.

The defendant holds the other 60 percent interest in the Kialami property. That interest has become part of the C H Belfield Family Trust No 2. The…

Grounds of appeal

[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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Belfield v Belfield and 2 Ors and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] NSWSC 1146
Decision Date: 19 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Belfield v Belfield and 2 Ors involved a dispute over the estate of the deceased, with the claimant, a son of the deceased, seeking to make a family provision claim. The court was tasked with determining whether the deceased had entered into a prescribed transaction that would preclude the claimant from making a claim. The deceased had passed away leaving a will that did not provide for the claimant, leading to the claimant's application for family provision. The central legal issue before the court was whether the deceased's entry into a prescribed transaction, where the claimant had already settled family disputes prior to the deceased's death, barred the claimant from making a family provision claim. The court considered whether the settlement of the family disputes by the claimant constituted a prescribed transaction under the relevant legislation, which would result in the claimant being unable to make a claim.

The court examined the legislative provisions and relevant case law to determine the nature and scope of prescribed transactions. It held that the settlement of family disputes by the claimant, which occurred prior to the deceased's death, did indeed constitute a prescribed transaction. Given that the claimant had already settled the family disputes before the deceased's death, the court found that the claimant was precluded from making a family provision claim. The court reasoned that the purpose of the legislation was to prevent multiple claims and to ensure that disputes are resolved at the appropriate time, which in this case, had already occurred. Consequently, the claimant's application for family provision was dismissed.

The court's decision was based on a strict interpretation of the statutory provisions governing family provision claims and prescribed transactions. The court emphasised the importance of the timing of dispute resolution and the finality it brings to estate planning. The claimant's prior settlement of disputes with the deceased was seen as final, and the court held that it precluded the claimant from making a subsequent family provision claim. This decision underscores the importance of understanding and adhering to the legislative framework governing family provision claims and prescribed transactions in estate disputes. The court's ruling ensures that parties are aware of the implications of settling disputes prior to a deceased's death and the potential consequences for future claims.

Orders