Butler v Morris; Butler (bht NSW Trustee & Guardian) v Morris

The case of Butler v Morris involved an application by two adopted children of the deceased, Craig and Carolyn Butler, for a family provision order under the Succession Act 2006. The dispute centred on whether the deceased had made adequate and proper provision for them in their Will. Craig and Carolyn contended that the Will did not provide adequately for them, while their sister, the defendant, had been granted Probate. Carolyn and Craig did not dispute that they had not been adequately provided for and agreed that an order should be made in Carolyn's favour. The central issues were the quantum of the provision and how the burden of that provision should be allocated, particularly concerning moneys used by the defendant during the deceased's lifetime.

The court examined the nature of the relationship between the deceased and each of the applicants, considering the extent to which each had been provided for in the Will and the circumstances surrounding the deceased's estate. The court assessed whether the Will reflected the deceased's intentions and obligations towards the applicants, particularly in light of the familial ties and the contributions made by each party. The court also evaluated the defendant's use of estate funds during the deceased's lifetime and its impact on the available resources for distribution.

The court concluded that the deceased had not made adequate and proper provision for Craig and Carolyn in their Will. It found that the defendant, who had been granted Probate, had used estate funds during the deceased's lifetime, which reduced the available resources for distribution. The court ordered that the defendant should pay Carolyn a sum of money to address the inadequacy in her provision. This amount was determined based on the needs of Carolyn and the contributions she had made to the deceased during their lifetime. The court also considered the impact of the defendant's actions on the available estate funds, directing that the defendant bear a portion of the burden of the provision.

The final orders included a payment by the defendant to Carolyn to rectify the inadequacy in her provision, and an allocation of the burden of this payment based on the defendant's use of estate funds during the deceased's lifetime. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering the deceased's intentions, the contributions of the applicants, and the equitable distribution of the estate in making family provision orders.