Legal Research
Cases
Cropley v Cropley

Cropley v Cropley

Case [2002] NSWSC 349 26 April 2002

Informal Wills

Assignments in Equity

Family Provision

Succession Law

Family Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Cropley v Cropley [2002] NSWSC 349

CURRENT JURISDICTION: (1) Equity Division - Probate List
(2) Equity Division

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 100191/00; 4029/01

HEARING DATE(S): 12/03/02, 13/03/02

JUDGMENT DATE: 26 April 2002

PARTIES :

(1) Elizabeth Anne Cropley - Plaintiff
Richard Oswald Cropley - First Defendant
Susan Gai Thorley - Second Defendant
Peter Allan Rowlands Clinch - Third Defendant
Richard Oswald Cropley Cross-Claimant
Elizabeth Anne Cropley - Cross-Defendant
(2) Geoffrey David Cropley - Plaintiff
Elizabeth Anne Cropley - Defendant

JUDGMENT OF: Barrett J

COUNSEL : (1) Mr P.H. Blackburn-Hart - Plaintiff
Ms P.J. Gormly - Defendants
(2) Ms P.J. Gormly - Plaintiff
Mr P.H. Blackburn-Hart - Defendant

SOLICITORS: (1) Teece Hodgson and Ward - Plaintiff
Holding Redlich - Defendants
(2) Holding Redlich - Plaintiff
Teece Hodgson and Ward - Defendant

CATCHWORDS: SUCCESSION - informal wills - whether documents signed by testator after making formal will operate as amendments of will - EQUITY - assignments in equity - assignment of part of debt - no consideration - assignment valid in equity - FAMILY PROVISION - principles upon which relief granted - competing claims of widow and adult sons - failure by testator to make sufficient income provision for widow - no failure to make adequate provision for adult sons

LEGISLATION CITED: Conveyancing Act 1919
Family Provision Act 1982
Interpretation Act 1987
Wills Probate and Administration Act 1898

CASES CITED: Blackmore v Allen [2000] NSWCA 162
Bosch v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd [1938] AC 463
Re Application of Brown; Estate of Springfield (1991) 23 NSWLR 535
Estate D M Edwards; Treacey v Edwards [2000] NSWSC 846
In the Estate of Gatt (unreported, NSWSC, 13 June 1990)
Gregory v Hudson [1999] NSWCA 221
King v Foster (unreported, NSWCA, 7 December 1995)
Luciano v Rosenblum (1985) 2 NSWLR 65
Marshall v Carruthers [2002] NSWCA 47
O'Loughlin v Low [2002] NSWSC 222
Permanent Trustee Co Ltd v Fraser (1995) 36 NSWLR 24
Sayer v Sayer [1999] NSWCA 340
Shepherd v Commissioner of Taxation (1965) 113 CLR 385
Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201
In re Steel Wing Co Ltd [1921] 1 Ch 349
White v Barron (1980) 54 ALJR 333

DECISION: See paragraphs [36] and [97] to [100]

- 40 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BARRETT J

FRIDAY, 26 APRIL 2002

100191/01 – ELIZABETH ANNE CROPLEY v RICHARD OSWALD CROPLEY & ORS – ESTATE OF DAVID OSWALD CROPLEY
4029/01 – GEOFFREY DAVID CROPLEY v ELIZABETH ANNE CROPLEY – ESTATE OF DAVID OSWALD CROPLEY

JUDGMENT

Background

1 David Oswald Cropley (“Dr Cropley”), a retired medical practitioner, died on 8 June 2000 aged 73 years. He made a will on 22 November 1999. I shall refer to this as “the 1999 will”. Thereafter, he signed two other documents of relevance to these proceedings, one dated 23 January 2000 and the other dated 23 May 2000. I shall refer to these as “the January document” and “the May document” respectively.

2 Dr Cropley was, at the time of his death, married…

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 Cropley v Cropley

Details

AGLC: Cropley v Cropley [2002] NSWSC 349
Case: [2002] NSWSC 349
Decision Date: 26 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Cropley v Cropley, the dispute arose from the interpretation of documents related to the estate of the deceased, Cropley. The primary issue was whether certain documents signed by the deceased after executing a formal will operated as amendments to that will. The widow and the adult sons of the deceased contested the distribution of the estate, each asserting their entitlement under the will and principles of family provision. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which was tasked with determining the validity of the documents and the appropriate distribution of the estate.

The court needed to address several legal issues, including the interpretation of the documents in question to ascertain if they constituted valid amendments to the formal will. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the widow's claim under the Family Provision Act 1969 (NSW) was valid, given the testator's failure to provide sufficient income for her, and whether the adult sons had been adequately provided for. The court also had to determine whether an assignment of part of a debt, made without consideration, was valid in equity.

The Supreme Court found that the documents in question did not operate as amendments to the will. The court emphasised the importance of clear and unequivocal language in altering testamentary dispositions. Regarding the widow's claim, the court held that the testator's failure to provide adequate income for her warranted relief under the Family Provision Act. The court noted that the adult sons had been provided for in the will and were not in need of further provision. The assignment of part of the debt was deemed valid in equity, despite the absence of consideration, based on principles of equity. The court ordered that the estate be distributed in a manner that provided for the widow's needs while respecting the testator's original intentions and the statutory rights of the adult sons.

Orders