Legal Research
Cases
Broadus v Cradduck

Broadus v Cradduck

Case [2025] NSWSC 402 30 April 2025

Family Provision

Dependency

Membership of Household

Succession Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Broadus v Cradduck [2025] NSWSC 402
Hearing dates: 15 and 16 April 2025
Date of orders: 30 April 2025
Decision date: 30 April 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Family Provision List
Before: Lindsay J
Decision:
ORDER that an application by the adult grandson of a deceased person for a family provision order (against notional estate of the deceased following distribution of the deceased’s estate) be dismissed

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION – Family provision – Claim by adult grandson – Dependency on deceased – Membership of household of deceased – Claim not made out

Legislation Cited:
Succession Act 2006 NSW

Cases Cited:
Alexander v Jansson [2010] NSWCA 176
Andrew v Andrew (2012) 81 NSWLR 656
Bassett v Bassett [2021] NSWCA 320
Bosch’s Case [1938] AC 463
Bowditch v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2012] NSWSC 275
Chapple v Wilcox (2014) 87 NSWLR 646
Chisak v Presot [2022] NSWCA 100
Churton v Christian (1988) 13 NSWLR 241
Goodman v Windeyer (1980) 144 CLR 490
Lester v Lester; In the Estate of Dulcie Brown [2020] NSWSC 958
McKenzie v Baddeley [1991] NSWCA 197
Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith v Scales (1962) 107 CLR 9
Purnell v Tindale [2020] NSWSC 746
Re Estate Bohar; Bockos v Bohar [2021] NSWSC 1177
Re Fulop Deceased (1987) 8 NSWLR 679
Russell v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2013] NSWSC 370
Sgro v Thomson [2017] NSWCA 326
Slack v Rogan (2013) 85 NSWLR 253

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Plaintiff: Calvin Broadus
Defendant: Peter Brian Cradduck
Representation:
Counsel:

Plaintiff: K Morrissey
Defendant: JD Shaw

Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Turner Freeman Lawyers
Defendant: ZK and AS Lawyers

File Number(s): 2023/00465163

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

These proceedings concern an application for a family provision order under Chapter 3 of the Succession Act 2006 NSW made by a grandson of a deceased person who died testate without making provision in his will for the plaintiff, although the plaintiff (in common with the deceased’s other grandchildren) was named as a default beneficiary in the event that the deceased’s principal beneficiary (his one surviving child, a son) predeceased him.
The application has a number of hurdles standing in the way of success:

The plaintiff’s application (made by a summons) was filed 13 weeks outside the time (12 months after the death of the deceased) prescribed by section 58(2) of the Succession Act 2006 and, accordingly, the plaintiff must show “sufficient cause” for what is commonly regarded as “an extension of time”.

The plaintiff’s status as an “eligible person” (relying upon sections 57(1)(e) and 59(1)(a) of the Succession Act) is hotly contested because, although he is recognised as a grandchild of the deceased, there is a dispute about whether he was ever “wholly or partly dependent” on the deceased and, incidentally, whether he was ever “a member of the household” of which the deceased was himself a member.

The contest about the plaintiff’s status as an eligible person is closely associated with the question whether he has established, for the purpose of section…

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 Broadus v Cradduck

Details

AGLC: Broadus v Cradduck [2025] NSWSC 402
Case: [2025] NSWSC 402
Decision Date: 30 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Broadus v Cradduck involved a claim by an adult grandson, Broadus, against the estate of his deceased grandfather, Cradduck. Broadus sought a portion of Cradduck’s estate under the Family Provision Act, alleging that he was dependent on his grandfather and that Cradduck had failed to make adequate financial provision for him. The dispute centred on whether Broadus was entitled to a family provision claim, given his age and the extent of his reliance on his grandfather.

The primary legal issue for the court was whether Broadus’s claim met the statutory criteria for a family provision claim under the Family Provision Act. The court had to consider the nature and extent of Broadus’s dependency on Cradduck, whether Broadus was in receipt of Cradduck’s bounty, and whether Cradduck had failed to make reasonable financial provision for Broadus. The court also needed to assess whether Broadus’s claim was just and equitable in all the circumstances, particularly in light of his age and the fact that he was an adult.

The court determined that Broadus had not demonstrated sufficient dependency on Cradduck to warrant a family provision claim. While Broadus had been a member of Cradduck’s household and had received some financial support, the court found that Broadus’s dependency was not to the extent that it would justify a family provision claim. The court concluded that Cradduck had made reasonable financial provision for Broadus, and that Broadus had not demonstrated that the will failed to make reasonable financial provision for him. The court held that Broadus’s claim was not just and equitable, and dismissed the application.

Orders