SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Darveniza v Darveniza & Drakos as Executors of the Estate of Bojan Darveniza and Ors [2014] QSC 37
PARTIES:
NATASHA MORGAN (under Part 4, Sections 40-44, Succession Act 1981 (Qld)
(applicant)
v
XIAO HONG DARVENIZA AND HARRY DRAKOS as Executors of the Estate of BOJAN DARVENIZA deceased
(respondents)FILE NO:
SC 13827 of 2010
PARTIES:
STEVEN BOJAN DARVENIZA
(plaintiff)
v
XIAO HONG DARVENIZA AND HARRY DRAKOS as Executors of the Estate of BOJAN DARVENIZA deceased
(first defendant)
LEISURE KART CITY PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE DARVENIZA FAMILY TRUST
(second defendant)
MIDAS INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
(third defendant)
UNIVERSAL ACCOMMODATION PTY LTD
(fourth defendant)
DARVENIZA PROPERTIES PTY LTD
(fifth defendant)
DARVENIZA PROPERTIES PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR DARVENIZA GROUP SUPERANNUATION FUND(sixth defendant)
FILE NO:
SC 1766 of 2012
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
18 March 2014
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
30 September 2013, 1, 2, 3 and 4 October 2013
JUDGE:
Martin J
ORDER:
In SC 13827 of 2010
That further provision be made for the proper maintenance and support of Steven Darveniza out of the estate of Bojan Darveniza by payment of a lump sum of $3,000,000.
In SC 1766 of 2012
The claim is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
SUCCESSION – FAMILY PROVISION – REQUIREMENT OF ADEQUATE AND PROPER MAINTENANCE – WHETHER APPLICANT LEFT WITH INSUFFICIENT PROVISION – CLAIMS BY CHILDREN – where the testator died leaving an estate worth approximately $27,000,000 – where no provision was made for a grown son of the testator’s first marriage – where the son’s net worth was approximately $2,500,000 at trial – where the son had worked for many years in the testator’s business – where the testator’s reasons for not providing for the son were misconceived – where family provision claims by other children of the testator had been settled for between $2,850,000 and $3,200,000 – whether the son was entitled to an order under the Succession Act that he be provided for, and if so, to what extent
ESTOPPEL – ESTOPPEL BY CONDUCT – ACT, OMISSION OR ASSUMPTION – REPRESENTATION GENERALLY – NATURE OF REPRESENTATION – where a son of the testator’s first marriage had worked in the testator’s business – where the testator had encouraged him to do so, and to leave school in order to work for him – where the testator had made statements about the future of the business – where the son had pursued an alternate career as an airline pilot – whether the testator’s representations were sufficiently clear and unambiguous to give rise to an estoppel in the circumstances
TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – TERMINOLOGY – TRADE OR COMMERCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the testator’s son had made certain representations to his son in respect of his businesses and interests in property – where the son worked, over a period of time, for the business – whether the representations were made “in trade or…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Darveniza v Darveniza and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] QSC 37
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether Steven was entitled to an order for proper maintenance and support from his father’s estate and whether the representations made by Bojan amounted to an estoppel. The court needed to determine if Bojan’s conduct and representations regarding the business were sufficiently clear and unambiguous to establish an estoppel. Additionally, the court had to assess whether Steven's work in Bojan's business and Bojan's encouragement for Steven to leave school constituted a representation that could form the basis of an estoppel claim.
The court found that Steven had not been adequately provided for from the estate, given his significant contribution to the family business and the absence of a specific provision in Bojan’s will. The court also determined that the representations made by Bojan were not sufficiently clear and unambiguous to establish an estoppel. Consequently, the court dismissed Steven’s estoppel claim. However, the court did order that a lump sum of $3,000,000 be paid to Steven for his proper maintenance and support.
In conclusion, the court's final orders included a directive for a lump sum payment of $3,000,000 to Steven from his father’s estate, while dismissing his claim for an estoppel-based provision.
Orders
Orders of the court
In SC 13827 of 2010
That further provision be made for the proper maintenance and support of Steven Darveniza out of the estate of Bojan Darveniza by payment of a lump sum of $3,000,000.
In SC 1766 of 2012
The claim is dismissed.
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.