Carey v Robson

Case [2010] NSWCA 212



New South Wales


Court of Appeal


CITATION: Carey v Robson [2010] NSWCA 212
HEARING DATE(S): 19 August 2010
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 

19 August 2010
JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at [1], [41]; Campbell JA at [39]; Sackville AJA at [40]
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 19 August 2010
DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS: FAMILY PROVISION – Unequal and allegedly disproportionate gifts to children – Whether primary judge erred in holding that plaintiff had not been left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance and advancement.
LEGISLATION CITED: Family Provision Act 1982 ss 7, 9.
CATEGORY: Principal judgment
CASES CITED: Carey v Robson & Anor; Nicholls v Robson & Anor [2009] NSWSC 1142
Foley v Ellis [2008] NSWCA 288
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725
Singer v Berghouse (No 2) [1994] HCA 40; (1994) 181 CLR 201
Vigolo v Bostin [2005] HCA 11; (2005) 221 CLR 191
PARTIES: Marion Allinson CAREY (appellant)
Alan Frederick William ROBSON (respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 2010/21649
COUNSEL: L J ELLISON SC/ R M LOVAS (appellant)
J E ROBSON SC/ G R WAUGH (respondent)
SOLICITORS: Kerrisons The Law Firm (appellant)
W A Baxter & Co Pty Ltd (respondent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court - Equity Division
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4842/07; SC 5215/07
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Palmer J
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 28 October 2009
LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: Carey v Robson & Anor; Nicholls v Robson & Anor [2009] NSWSC 1142


- 14 -


                          CA 2010/21649

                          HODGSON JA
                          CAMPBELL JA
                          SACKVILLE AJA

                          THURSDAY 19 AUGUST 2010
Marion Allinson CAREY v Alan Frederick William ROBSON
Judgment

1 HODGSON JA: The late Frederick Robson died on 5 April 2006 aged eighty-six, leaving a will dated 21 July 2005. He was survived by two daughters and one son, his wife having pre-deceased him. I will refer to members of the testator’s family by their first names, as did the primary judge.

2 Probate of the testator’s will was granted to the three children, Alan, Marion and Rosemary. Marion and Rosemary each brought proceedings under the Family Provision Act 1982 (the Act) (since repealed), in each case naming the other two executors as defendants. On 28 October 2009, Palmer J gave his decision dismissing both proceedings (Carey v Robson & Anor; Nicholls v Robson & Anor [2009] NSWSC 1142). On 10 November 2009, the primary judge made orders as to costs. Marion has appealed against the dismissal of her proceedings.

3 The background facts to the application were set out by the primary judge, in a manner not in dispute, at paras [5] – [12] of his judgment, as follows:

          [5] The testator was born in 1920. He married Margaret in 1955 and the marriage lasted until Margaret’s death in 2005. There were three children of the marriage, Alan (born in 1958), Marion (born in 1960) and Rosemary (born in November 1963).

          [6] The testator spent all his life on…

Continue reading Carey v Robson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Carey v Robson [2010] NSWCA 212
Case
[2010] NSWCA 212
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *Carey v Robson* concerned a dispute over the distribution of a deceased's estate. The plaintiff, one of the deceased's children, argued that the provision made for her in the deceased's will was inadequate for her proper maintenance and advancement, particularly in light of alleged unequal and disproportionate gifts made to other children. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the plaintiff had not been left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance and advancement. This required the court to consider the deceased's testamentary intentions, the plaintiff's circumstances, and the extent to which the gifts to other beneficiaries might be considered disproportionate or unfair in the context of family provision legislation.

The Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed the appeal. While the specific reasoning of the primary judge and the Court of Appeal is not detailed in the provided text, the outcome indicates that the court found no error in the primary judge's assessment that the plaintiff had received adequate provision. The court upheld the original decision, implying that the deceased's testamentary disposition, despite any alleged inequalities, met the legal threshold for proper maintenance and advancement under the relevant family provision legislation. The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.