Legal Research
Cases
Cameron v Cameron

Cameron v Cameron

Case [2009] SASC 27 11 February 2009

Inheritance (Family Provision) Act

Claim by Adult Children

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Application)
CAMERON & ANOR v CAMERON & ANOR
[2009] SASC 27
Reasons of Judge Lunn a Master of the Supreme Court
11 February 2009
PROCEDURE - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
Inheritance (Family Provision) Act - application to set aside judgment entered with concurrence of parties to give effect to a settlement agreement - defendants misrepresented size of the estate to the plaintiffs - held under 87R 84.12 judgment to be set aside.
Inheritance (Family Provision) Act - claim by 2 adult children who were excluded from the will - no contact between deceased and the children for 10 years before his death resulting from deceased having previously sexually abused his daughter - net estate of $664,775 - no moral claim on deceased by beneficiaries in his will - award of $112,500 for 37 year old, single son in regular employment and owning freehold home - award of $200,000 for 41 year old, married daughter with 2 children aged 10 and 9 years who is less well off than her brother.

CAMERON & ANOR v CAMERON & ANOR
[2009] SASC 27
Reasons on plaintiffs’ application to set aside the judgment of 23 October 2006 and for provision out of the estate.

JUDGE LUNN: John Ramsay Cameron (“the deceased”) was married to Maureen Cameron (“Maureen”). They had two children, the first plaintiff, John Cameron (“John”), who was born in 1971 and the second plaintiff, Laura (now Agars) (“Laura”), who was born in 1967. The deceased had three brothers, Ian, Alan and Duncan Cameron (“the brothers”).
From the time when she was aged about seven Laura was wantonly and regularly abused sexually by the deceased. It is not necessary to go into the sordid details which were undisputed. These experiences which persisted well into her teenage years had a major adverse psychological effect on Laura. There was also some abuse of her by her uncle, Alan. This sexual abuse was unknown to Maureen and John. John did not enjoy a good relationship with his father through his teenage years, partly because his father continually favoured Laura, which presumably resulted from their secret sexual relationship.
In March 1993 Maureen found out about the sexual activities between Laura and the deceased. She immediately required the deceased to leave their matrimonial home and they then separated. They were never divorced, but there was a property settlement between them. John also left home shortly after March 1993 and was regularly abusing alcohol and marijuana. He had no further contact with the deceased.
Laura continued to have some contact with the deceased until March 1994. She then had a major argument with him over his demand that she should accompany him to a major social event. Thereafter she had no contact with him. Following that breakup with her father, she has had problems with depression for which she has been prescribed medication. Later in 1994 she was married to Scott Agars. She has two children born in 1998 and 1999.
After his separation…

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 Cameron v Cameron

Details

AGLC: Cameron v Cameron [2009] SASC 27
Case: [2009] SASC 27
Decision Date: 11 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cameron v Cameron involved an application by two adult children, who were excluded from their father's will, to set aside a judgment entered with the concurrence of the parties, which gave effect to a settlement agreement. The children sought to have the judgment set aside on the grounds that the defendants had misrepresented the size of the estate to them. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issues in the case were whether the defendants had misrepresented the size of the estate to the plaintiffs, and whether the judgment should be set aside under section 87R of the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act. The court had to determine whether the misrepresentation was material and whether it had induced the plaintiffs to enter into the settlement agreement.

The court found that the defendants had indeed misrepresented the size of the estate to the plaintiffs and that the misrepresentation was material. The court held that the judgment should be set aside under section 87R of the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act, as the settlement agreement was entered into on the basis of the misrepresentation. The court also made an order for the distribution of the estate, awarding $112,500 to the son and $200,000 to the daughter.

In conclusion, the court set aside the judgment and ordered the distribution of the estate in accordance with the provisions of the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act. The court found that the defendants had misrepresented the size of the estate to the plaintiffs and that this misrepresentation was material. The court also found that the plaintiffs had no moral claim on the deceased and that the estate should be distributed between the two adult children.

Orders