Bosschieter v Howitt

The parties involved in the case were Bosschieter, the plaintiff and granddaughter of the deceased, and Howitt, the executor of the deceased’s estate. The dispute centred on the deceased’s will, which divided her estate into five equal parts, with one part allocated to each of her four children and the remaining part to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought additional provision from the estate, contending that she was an eligible person under the Succession Act 2005 and that various factors warranted an order for further provision. The estate, in turn, cross-claimed against the plaintiff, seeking to set aside a gift made by the deceased to the plaintiff shortly before her death. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff was an eligible person under the Succession Act, whether there were factors that warranted an order for provision to the plaintiff, and whether the estate’s claim for undue influence over the deceased at the time of the gift was substantiated.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff qualified as an "eligible person" under the Succession Act and if there were grounds for an order for provision. Additionally, the court had to assess the estate's claim that the plaintiff had exercised undue influence over the deceased when a term deposit was transferred to the plaintiff's name. The court considered the nature of the relationship between the plaintiff and the deceased, the extent to which the plaintiff lived with the deceased, and the circumstances surrounding the transfer of the term deposit. The court had to balance these factors against the explicit directions in the deceased’s will and the principles of equity, particularly those relating to undue influence.

The court concluded that the plaintiff was an eligible person under the Succession Act, considering her close relationship with the deceased and the fact that she had lived in the deceased's household. However, the court found that the deceased had not been in a position of special disadvantage at the time of the transfer of the term deposit, and therefore, the estate’s claim for undue influence was not substantiated. As a result, the court ruled that no additional provision should be made to the plaintiff from the estate. The estate's cross-claim was dismissed, and the court upheld the terms of the will, which allocated the estate as directed by the deceased.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff was an eligible person under the Succession Act, but no further provision should be made to her from the estate. The estate's cross-claim to set aside the gift made to the plaintiff was dismissed, and the court confirmed the validity of the deceased’s will as it stood. The estate was directed to distribute the assets according to the terms of the will, without additional provision to the plaintiff.