DANIELS -v- HALL (as Administrator of the Estate of Arnold Edward Daniels) [2014] WASC 152
SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Citation No:
[2014] WASC 152
Case No:
CIV:1703/2012
10-12 FEBRUARY 2014
Coram:
EM HEENAN J
2/05/14
51
Judgment Part:
1 of 1
Result:
Application dismissed
B
PDF Version
Parties:
ROBERT GRAEME DANIELS MARILYN DENISE HALL (as Administrator of the Estate of Arnold Edward Daniels) MARILYN DENISE HALL JANICE PHYLLIS McMILLAN DEBRA ANNE DANIELS HELEN JAN DANIELS KAYE PATRICIA BROUWER
Catchwords:
Family provision Family Provision Act 1972 as Amended Application by adult son Estate of deceased divided equally between three of four children or their immediate descendants Plaintiff son omitted from benefit under will Extensive farming properties transferred by deceased to plaintiff son during the former's lifetime Claim for provision by plaintiff son from deceased's estate Relevant factors Threshold tests
CITATION : DANIELS -v- HALL (as Administrator of the Estate of Arnold Edward Daniels) [2014] WASC 152 CORAM : EM HEENAN J HEARD : 10-12 FEBRUARY 2014 DELIVERED : 2 MAY 2014 FILE NO/S : CIV 1703 of 2012 MATTER : In the Matter of the Inheritance (Family…
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 Daniels v Hall
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Daniels v Hall [2014] WASC 152
Case
[2014] WASC 152
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The plaintiff, Mr. Daniels, applied for provision from the estate of his deceased father, Mr. Hall, under the Family Provision Act 1972. The estate was divided equally between three of the deceased's four children, with the plaintiff son omitted from the benefit under the deceased's will. Mr. Hall had transferred extensive farming properties to Mr. Daniels during his lifetime, prompting Mr. Daniels to seek provision from his father's estate. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff son was in "need" within the meaning of the Act and whether the provision made for him was "fair and reasonable" in all the circumstances. The court also had to consider relevant factors and the threshold tests applicable under the legislation.
The court found that Mr. Daniels was not in need as he was gainfully employed and had significant assets. The transfer of the farming properties during Mr. Hall's lifetime was considered, but it was determined that this did not constitute a sufficient reason for making further provision from the estate. The court held that the deceased had made "reasonable financial provision" for Mr. Daniels, and that the estate had been divided fairly and reasonably amongst the children. The plaintiff son's application was dismissed, and no further provision was ordered.