Bullock v Grant

[2024] ACTSC 397

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Bullock v Grant

Citation: 

[2024] ACTSC 397

Hearing Date: 

13 December 2024

Decision Date: 

13 December 2024

Before:

Mossop J

Decision: 

(1)     Both parties have access to the redacted version of the documents produced in response to the subpoena marked “REDACTED COPY ACCESS PERMITTED ORDERS OF MOSSOP J 13/12/24”.

(2)     The defendant is to pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the subpoena to the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation and costs arising from its objection to any grant of access to the subpoena material produced by the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation, including the costs of the hearings on 9 and 13 December 2024.

Catchwords: 

SUCCESSION – FAMILY PROVISION AND MAINTENANCE – Objection by defendant to allowing plaintiff access to material produced under subpoena – material related to superannuation benefits paid to deceased’s youngest child – material relevant to circumstances of competing claimant for bounty of testator – material relevant to question of whether adequate provision made – uncontroversial redactions allowed – access granted to both parties – costs consequences where objection unsustainable

Legislation Cited: 

Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT), s 5A

Family Provision Act 1969 (ACT)

Cases Cited: 

McCosker v McCosker (1957) 97 CLR 566

Vigolo v Bostin [2005] HCA 11; 221 CLR 191

Parties: 

Michigan Bullock (First Plaintiff)

Seattle Bullock (Second Plaintiff)

Natalie Grant as executor of the will of the late Stuart James Grant (Defendant)

Representation: 

Counsel

S Bell (Plaintiffs)

T Herbertson (Defendant)

Solicitors

Dobinson Davey Clifford Simpson (Plaintiffs)

MV Law (Defendant)

File Number:

SC 156 of 2024

MOSSOP J:

1․These are proceedings involving a claim under the Family Provision Act 1969 (ACT) by the two elder children of the deceased. Those children were born to the deceased and his first wife. The third child of the deceased was born to his second wife.

2․The defendant has objected to access being granted to documents produced by the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation pursuant to a subpoena. Those documents relate to a decision by the Corporation to pay the deceased’s superannuation benefits to his third child.

3․The deceased’s will gives 40 percent of his estate to his second wife, 10 percent to his sister, who is the executor of the estate, and 50 percent to a testamentary trust for his third child. The will does not leave anything to his first two children, hence the application for family provision.

4․The bases for objection to the production of the material were set out in a letter dated 10 December 2024 from the defendant’s solicitor to the Registrar of the court, which was required to be provided by a direction made by the Registrar on 9 December 2024. That letter will be treated as the written submissions and included on the file. The oral submissions made on behalf of the defendant reiterated the points made in the written submissions.

5․The first point made was that the superannuation benefits were never an asset of the estate. The submission was that they were, therefore, irrelevant to the current litigation.