Dean v Collins [No 2]

Case [2015] WASCA 151

DEAN -v- COLLINS [No 2] [2015] WASCA 151



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2015] WASCA 151
THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:CACV:80/201424 MARCH 2015
Coram:MARTIN CJ
BUSS JA
CHANEY J		4/08/15
11Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal allowed
B
PDF Version
Parties:VICKI JOY DEAN
BEVERLEY KAY COLLINS
AVE ANNA LEWIS (As Executor of the Estate of ETHEL MAY LEWIS)
KERRY CHARLES LEWIS
AVE ANNA LEWIS

Catchwords:
Family Provision Act 1972 (WA)
Adequate provision for proper maintenance, support, education and advancement in life
Two stage process
Whether jurisdictional question satisfied
Relative needs of claimant as compared to named beneficiaries
Obvious need of claimant

Legislation:
Family Provision Act 1972 (WA), s 6(1)

Case References:
Bondelmonte v Blanckensee [1989] WAR 305
In Re Allen (dec); Allen v Manchester [1922] NZLR 218
Maas v O'Neill [2013] WASC 379
Singer v Berghouse [1994] HCA 40; (1994) 181 CLR 201
Stokes v Collins & Lewis [2014] WASC 182
Vigolo v Bostin [2005] HCA 11; (2005) 221 CLR 191

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : DEAN -v- COLLINS [No 2] [2015] WASCA 151 CORAM : MARTIN CJ
    BUSS JA
    CHANEY J
HEARD : 24 MARCH 2015 DELIVERED : 4 AUGUST 2015 FILE NO/S : CACV 80 of 2014 BETWEEN : VICKI JOY DEAN
    Appellant

    AND

    BEVERLEY KAY COLLINS
    First-named First Respondent

    AVE ANNA LEWIS (As Executor of the Estate of ETHEL MAY LEWIS)
    Second-named First Respondent

    BEVERLEY KAY COLLINS
    Second Respondent

    KERRY CHARLES LEWIS
    First-named Third Respondent

    AVE ANNA LEWIS
    Second-named Third Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MASTER SANDERSON

Citation : STOKES -v- COLLINS & LEWIS [2014] WASC 182

File No : CIV 2412 of 2012


Catchwords:

Family Provision Act 1972 (WA) - Adequate provision for proper maintenance, support, education and advancement in life - Two stage process - Whether jurisdictional question satisfied - Relative needs of claimant as compared to named beneficiaries - Obvious need of claimant

Legislation:

Family Provision Act 1972 (WA), s 6(1)

Result:

Appeal allowed


Category: B




Representation:




Counsel:


    Appellant : Mr M Curwood
    First-named First Respondent : Ms R J Lee
    Second-named First Respondent : Ms R J Lee
    Second Respondent : Ms R J Lee
    First-named Third Respondent : Ms R J Lee
    Second-named Third Respondent : Ms R J Lee

Solicitors:

    Appellant : Arns & Associates
    First-named First Respondent : Young & Young
    Second-named First Respondent : Young & Young
    Second Respondent : Young & Young
    First-named Third Respondent : Young & Young
    Second-named Third Respondent : Young & Young



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

Bondelmonte v Blanckensee [1989] WAR 305
In Re Allen (dec); Allen v Manchester [1922] NZLR 218
Maas v O'Neill [2013] WASC 379
Singer v Berghouse [1994] HCA 40; (1994) 181 CLR 201
Stokes v Collins & Lewis [2014] WASC 182
Vigolo v Bostin [2005] HCA…

Continue reading Dean v Collins [No 2]

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dean v Collins [No 2] [2015] WASCA 151
Case
[2015] WASCA 151
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal, which originated from the Supreme Court of Western Australia, involved a dispute under the Family Provision Act 1972. The deceased had left a will that excluded his daughter, the appellant, who brought the case seeking a greater share of the estate. The court was tasked with determining whether the will made adequate provision for her maintenance, support, education, and advancement in life. The appellant argued that the will did not adequately provide for her needs compared to the named beneficiaries, the children of the deceased's deceased son.

The court needed to decide whether the jurisdictional question was satisfied, which required examining whether the appellant had an obvious need for maintenance, support, education, or advancement in life. The primary consideration was whether the appellant's need was compared to the needs of the named beneficiaries. The court had to assess the relative needs of the appellant and the named beneficiaries to determine if the deceased had made adequate provision for her.

The court concluded that the appellant had established an obvious need for maintenance, support, education, or advancement in life. The appellant's financial situation and the deceased's ability to provide for her were significant factors. The court found that the deceased had the means to provide for the appellant, and the will did not adequately account for her needs. The court determined that the jurisdictional question was satisfied, and the appellant's appeal was allowed. The case was remitted to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the court's findings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

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.