Chapple v Wilcox

The appeal in *Chapple v Wilcox* concerned an application for a family provision order under the *Succession Act 2006* (NSW). The applicant was the adult grandson of the deceased, who had left his entire estate to his only child, the applicant's mother. The estate was primarily comprised of the deceased's interest in a grazing enterprise, which was co-owned by the sole beneficiary. The primary judge had ordered payments totalling $387,000 to the grandson.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in making a family provision order in favour of the grandson, and whether the primary judge had failed to articulate a sufficient basis for departing from the deceased's testamentary intentions. The court also considered the principles applicable to family provision claims brought by grandchildren and the general approach to costs in such proceedings.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had miscarried in their evaluative judgment. The court held that there was no cogent basis in the evidence to justify departing from the deceased's clear scheme of benefaction in favour of his only child. The court reiterated the principles relevant to family provision claims by grandchildren, emphasising that such claims require strong justification. Furthermore, the court affirmed the general principle that costs follow the event in family provision cases, and that unsuccessful applicants should not ordinarily expect to be exempted from liability for costs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the primary judge's orders for provision and costs. Instead, the court ordered that the grandson's proceedings be dismissed and that he pay a significant portion of the defendant's costs. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal, with a certificate granted under the *Suitors' Fund Act 1951* (NSW).