CHRISTIE -v- EDWARD [2012] WASC 265

Pending Appeal

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASC 265
Case No:	CIV:1475/2010	Heard:	27 JUNE 2012
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	25/07/12
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Will varied to increase payment to the plaintiff
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JANELLE LEE CHRISTIE PATRICIA MAY EDWARD (as Executrix of the Estate of the late ROBYN LEE CHRISTIE (Dec)) ROCHELLE ANNE HARRISON DOROTHY MARGARET HAYDONWOOD MARJORIE BERYL CHRISTIE JANIE HUTTON VALMA ANNE BULMER MARJORIE BERYL MILLS
Catchwords:	Inheritance Whether adequate provision made Whether disentitling conduct
Legislation:	Inheritance (Family and Dependents Provision) Act 1972 (WA)
Case References:	Hannaford v Hannaford [2010] NSWSC 911 Hastings v Hastings [2008] NSWSC 1310 Kleinig v Neal [No 2] (1981) 2 NSWLR 532 Mulhall v Permanent Trustee [2004] NSWSC 365 Palmer v Dolman [2005] NSWCA 361 Pizzino v Pizzino [2010] QSC 35 Walker v Walker (Unreported, SCNSW, BC 9602381, 17 May 1996)

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : CHRISTIE -v- EDWARD [2012] WASC 265 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 27 JUNE 2012 DELIVERED : 25 JULY 2012 FILE NO/S : CIV 1475 of 2010 BETWEEN : JANELLE LEE CHRISTIE

Plaintiff

AND

PATRICIA MAY EDWARD (as Executrix of the Estate of the late ROBYN LEE CHRISTIE (Dec))

First Defendant

ROCHELLE ANNE HARRISON

Second Defendant

DOROTHY MARGARET HAYDONWOOD

Third Defendant

MARJORIE BERYL CHRISTIE

Fourth Defendant

JANIE HUTTON

Fifth Defendant

VALMA ANNE BULMER

Sixth Defendant

MARJORIE BERYL MILLS

Seventh Defendant

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Inheritance - Whether adequate provision made - Whether disentitling conduct

Legislation:

Inheritance (Family and Dependents Provision) Act 1972 (WA)

Result:

Will varied to increase payment to the plaintiff

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Dr J J Hockley

First Defendant : Mr S K Shepherd

Second Defendant : Mr S K Shepherd

Third Defendant : Mr S K Shepherd

Fourth Defendant : Mr S K Shepherd

Fifth Defendant : Mr S K Shepherd

Sixth Defendant : Mr S K Shepherd

Seventh Defendant : Mr S K Shepherd

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Carlo Primerano & Associates

First Defendant : Verschuer Edward

Second Defendant : Verschuer Edward

Third Defendant : Verschuer Edward

Fourth Defendant : Verschuer Edward

Fifth Defendant : Verschuer Edward

Sixth Defendant : Verschuer Edward

Seventh Defendant : Verschuer Edward

(Page 3)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Hannaford v Hannaford [2010] NSWSC 911
Hastings v Hastings [2008] NSWSC 1310
Kleinig v Neal [No 2] (1981) 2 NSWLR 532
Mulhall v Permanent Trustee [2004] NSWSC 365
Palmer v Dolman [2005] NSWCA 361
Pizzino v Pizzino [2010] QSC 35
Walker v Walker (Unreported, SCNSW, BC 9602381, 17 May 1996)

(Page 4)

McKECHNIE J

How this case comes to court

1 Two days before she died of ovarian cancer, and with the assistance of a solicitor, Robyn Christie made her last will and testament. From her modest estate, which counsel now agree has a net worth about $200,000, she left her daughter, Janelle, $10,000. The balance of the estate (except…

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 Christie v Edward

Details

AGLC: Christie v Edward [2012] WASC 265
Case: [2012] WASC 265
Decision Date: 25 JULY 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Christie v Edward, the plaintiff, Christie, sought a variation of the will of her late father, Edward. The dispute centred around whether the father had made adequate provision for Christie and whether his conduct during his lifetime could be seen as disentitling him to the benefit of the will as originally drafted. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues the court was required to address were whether the father had made adequate provision for Christie, considering her needs and expectations, and whether Edward's conduct during his lifetime, specifically his dealings with his other children, could be seen as disentitling him to the benefit of the will as it stood. The court had to weigh Christie's claims against the expressed wishes of Edward as set out in the will, while also considering the broader context of the family dynamics and financial circumstances.

The court found that Edward had not made adequate provision for Christie, taking into account her reasonable needs and expectations. Furthermore, the court concluded that Edward's conduct, particularly his preferential treatment of other family members, amounted to disentitling conduct. This conduct warranted a variation of the will to ensure that Christie received a fair and equitable share of her father's estate. Consequently, the court varied the will to increase Christie's payment, reflecting the need for equitable distribution among the children. The court's decision was grounded in the principle that the will should be interpreted in a manner that reflects the true intentions of the testator, taking into account both the expressed wishes and the broader context of familial relationships and conduct.

Orders

Orders of the court

Will varied to increase payment to the plaintiff

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.