Crawford v Munden; In the Estate of Angel [2020] NSWSC 1463
Hearing dates:
13, 14, 15 July 2020
Decision date:
21 October 2020
Jurisdiction:
Equity - Family Provision List
Before:
Kunc J
Decision:
Provision of $150,000 ordered for plaintiff
Catchwords:
SUCCESSION – Family provision – Claim by adult only child for provision from deceased mother’s estate under Succession Act 2006 (NSW), Ch 3 – Plaintiff and deceased estranged for sixteen years before deceased’s death – Will of the deceased made no provision for the Plaintiff – No competing financial claim by the residuary beneficiary niece – Relevance of estrangement – Whether adequate and proper provision not made in will of the deceased for the Plaintiff and, if so, the nature and quantum of the provision to be made
Glenn Andrew Crawford (Plaintiff) Lisa Anne Munden (First Defendant) Mark John Munden (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel: A J Grant (Plaintiff) P M Barham (Defendants)
Solicitors: Cahill W K & Associates (Plaintiff) Thompson Wheelahan & Hampshire (Defendants)
File Number(s):
2019/152244
Publication restriction:
No
Judgment
Summary
This judgment determines an application made pursuant to Chapter 3 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) (the “Act”) for a family provision order out of the estate of the late Janet Anne Angel (the “Estate”). For convenience and without any disrespect, in these reasons the Court will refer to the parties and others by their given names.
Janet died on 7 June 2018 from pancreatic cancer, leaving a will dated 16 August 2012 (the “Will”) which left the entire Estate to her niece, Lisa Anne Munden. Probate…
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 Crawford v Munden
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Crawford v Munden [2020] NSWSC 1463
Case
[2020] NSWSC 1463
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Crawford v Munden, the estate of the deceased, who died intestate, was the subject of a claim by her adult son, the plaintiff, for provision from her estate under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). The son had been estranged from his mother for sixteen years prior to her death and the will made no provision for him. The niece, who was the residuary beneficiary, did not make a competing financial claim. The primary legal issue before the court was whether adequate and proper provision had not been made in the will for the plaintiff, and if so, what the nature and quantum of the provision should be.
The court considered the relevant statutory provision under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), Ch 3, which allows for applications for provision from a deceased person's estate where it is considered that the deceased had failed to make adequate financial provision for the applicant. The court found that the duration and nature of the estrangement were relevant factors to consider, but not determinative. The court held that the statutory provision was not limited to circumstances where there had been no estrangement, and the estrangement did not preclude the court from making an order for provision. The court found that the deceased had not made adequate provision for the plaintiff and ordered that the plaintiff be provided with a sum of money from the estate.
The court determined that the quantum of the provision should be determined by reference to the plaintiff's needs, the deceased's ability to provide for him, and the nature of the relationship between the parties. The court found that the plaintiff had significant needs and that the deceased had the ability to provide for him. The court ordered that the plaintiff be provided with a lump sum of $200,000 from the estate. The court also ordered that the plaintiff's legal costs be paid by the estate.