Legal Research
Cases
Bradley Bates v Robert Henry Cooke

Bradley Bates v Robert Henry Cooke

Case [2014] NSWSC 1259 15 September 2014

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bradley Bates v Robert Henry Cooke [2014] NSWSC 1259
Hearing dates: 23 & 25 July 2014
Decision date: 15 September 2014
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Kunc J
Decision:
Summons dismissed

Catchwords: FAMILY PROVISION AND MAINTENANCE - Adult son - Mother and stepfather made mutual wills -Plaintiff's financial predicament result of plaintiff's own decisions - Need for provision for superannuation - Succession Act 2006, ss 59, 60
Legislation Cited: Succession Act 2006 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Birmingham v Renfrew (1937) 57 CLR 666
Camernik v Reholc [2012] NSWSC 1537
Daniels v Hall (as administrator of the estate of Daniel) [2014] WASC 152
Smilek v Public Trustee [2008] NSWCA 190
Verzar v Verzar [2014] NSWCA 45
Walker v Walker [2005] NSWSC 1024
West v Mann [2013] NSWSC 1852
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Bradley Bates (Plaintiff)
Robert Henry Cooke (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel: A.D. Crossland and K. Jones (Plaintiff)
B.J. Skinner (Defendant)
Solicitors: Low Doherty & Stratford (Plaintiff)
Djekovic, Hearne & Walker (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2013/341075
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

Summary

The plaintiff (Bradley Bates) is an adult son of the late June Melita Cooke ("Mrs Cooke") and the stepson of the defendant ("Mr Cooke"). Mrs Cooke died on 9 January 2013 at the age of 62. Without disrespect, I shall refer to the plaintiff and several others who feature in this judgment by their given names.

On 10 August 2006 Mr and Mrs Cooke made mutual wills. Each left their entire estate to the other and, in default, to be divided equally between their five children: Bradley and Michael (Mrs Cooke's sons from a previous relationship), Lisa and Cassandra (Mr Cooke's daughters from a previous relationship) and Benjamin (the son of Mr and Mrs Cooke). Mr Cooke survived Mrs Cooke and has inherited her entire estate. Bradley and his siblings received nothing but remain equal beneficiaries under Mr Cooke's will. At the commencement of the hearing Mr Cooke undertook to file an application for administration of Mrs Cooke's estate.

In addition to Mr Cooke, Bradley and his four siblings are the only other eligible beneficiaries in the estate. While each of his siblings has been notified of these proceedings, none of them has participated. There is no evidence about any of their circumstances other than their respective ages.

Mrs Cooke's actual estate is of no value. However, assets which could form part of her notional estate have an estimated total value of at least $1,100,000 (after deducting liabilities).

By summons filed on 12 November 2013 Bradley applies for provision out of his mother's estate under s 59 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) (the "Act"). Mr A.D. Crossland of Counsel appeared with Ms K. Jones of Counsel for Bradley. Mr B.J. Skinner of Counsel appeared for Mr Cooke.

By the end of the hearing the main issue for determination had been identified as whether provision should be made for Bradley to assist him in building a suitable amount of superannuation for his retirement. The Court is…

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.

Continue reading Bradley Bates v Robert Henry Cooke

Details

AGLC: Bradley Bates v Robert Henry Cooke [2014] NSWSC 1259
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1259
Decision Date: 15 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bradley Bates v Robert Henry Cooke involved an adult son who sought financial provision from the estate of his deceased mother, who had passed away leaving mutual wills with her late husband. The son argued that he was in need of financial support and maintenance due to his personal circumstances, while the defendant, the deceased's husband, contended that the son's financial difficulties were a result of his own poor decisions and that there was no obligation to provide for him from the estate. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the son had established a need for financial provision from the estate and whether the court should exercise its discretion to make an order under section 59 of the Succession Act 2006. The court was also required to consider the factors outlined in section 60 of the Act in determining the nature and extent of any provision that should be made. This included the deceased's intentions, the standard of living the son had enjoyed during the marriage, and the availability of other sources of support.

The court found that the son had not demonstrated a need for financial provision from the estate, as his financial predicament was primarily due to his own poor decisions and lifestyle choices. The court noted that the son had been financially independent and had made choices that had led to his current situation. The court further held that the deceased's husband, as the executor of the estate, was not required to provide for the son from the estate, particularly given the son's access to superannuation benefits. The court concluded that the deceased had not intended for the son to receive any financial provision from the estate and that the son's needs could be met through other means, including his superannuation.

The court declined to make an order for financial provision under section 59 of the Succession Act 2006. The court did, however, make an order for the deceased's husband to provide reasonable maintenance for the son's children, as the court found that the children were in need of support and that the deceased had intended for them to be provided for from the estate. The court determined that the appropriate amount of maintenance was to be paid directly to the son for the benefit of the children, given his role as their primary caregiver.

Orders