Legal Research
Cases
Doddridge v Badenach

Doddridge v Badenach

Case [2011] TASSC 34 8 July 2011

Succession Law

Family provision and maintenance

Duty to children

Long estrangement

Family Law

Type to search within this case.

[2011] TASSC 34

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Doddridge v Badenach [2011] TASSC 34

PARTIES:  DODDRIDGE, Patrice
  v
  BADENACH, Robert John

EGAN, Damian Francis
CALVERT, Roger Wayne

FILE NO/S:  23/2010
DELIVERED ON:  8 July 2011
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  1 February 2011
JUDGMENT OF:  Evans J

CATCHWORDS:

Succession – Family provision and maintenance – Failure by testator to make sufficient provision for applicant – Duty of testator – Duty to children – Long estrangement.

Testator's Family Maintenance Act 1912 (Tas), s3(1).
Vigolo v Bostin (2005) 221 CLR 191; Nicholls v Hall [2007] NSWCA 356; Gorton v Parks (1989) 17 NSWLR 1, applied.

Aust Dig Succession [308]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  K E Read
             First Respondent:  A L Hay
             Second Respondent:  G P Geason
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Worrall Lawyers
             First Respondent:  Murdoch Clarke
             Second Respondent:  Hunt & Hunt

Judgment Number: [2011] TASSC 34
Number of paragraphs: 50

Serial No 34/2011
File No 23/2003

PATRICE ALISON DODDRIDGE v ROBERT JOHN BADENACH,
DAMIAN FRANCIS EGAN AND ROGER WAYNE CALVERT

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT EVANS J

8 July 2011

The applicant, Patrice Doddridge, is the sole child of the testator, Jeffrey Doddridge, who died on 1 September 2009, leaving, by his will, his estate to the second respondent, Roger Calvert. The applicant applies for an order pursuant to the Testator's Family Maintenance Act 1912, s3(1), that provision be made for her out of the testator's estate. That subsection is as follows:

"3 Claims for maintenance against estate of deceased person
(1) If a person dies, whether testate or intestate, and in terms of his will or as a result of his intestacy any person by whom or on whose behalf application for provision out of his estate may be made under this Act is left without adequate provision for his proper maintenance and support thereafter, the Court or a judge may, in its or his discretion, on application made by or on behalf of the last-mentioned person, order that such provision as the Court or judge, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, thinks proper shall be made out of the estate of the deceased person for all or any of the persons by whom or on whose behalf such an application may be made, and may make such other order in the matter, including an order as to costs, as the Court or judge thinks fit."

Jeffrey Doddridge was born on 20 May 1931. He married the applicant's mother Gwen Grant. The applicant is the only child of their marriage. She is now 41 years of age. In 1973, when the applicant was about three years of age, her parents separated and soon after divorced. Following the separation the applicant resided with her mother and thereafter, save for one chance meeting, she had no involvement with her father. He was 78 years of age when he died.

The net value of his estate is $612,448.69.

The testator met Jane Calvert, a widow, who is the mother of Roger…

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 Doddridge v Badenach

Details

AGLC: Doddridge v Badenach [2011] TASSC 34
Case: [2011] TASSC 34
Decision Date: 8 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Doddridge v Badenach involved a dispute over the estate of a deceased person, where the applicant, the deceased's daughter, sought a larger share of the estate under the Family Provision Act. The deceased had passed away leaving an estate that was to be distributed according to the terms of his will. The applicant argued that the testator had failed to make sufficient provision for her, despite being estranged from him for many years. The matter was brought before the court to determine the appropriate distribution of the estate in light of the applicant's claim.

The court was required to address several legal issues. Firstly, it had to consider the testator's duty to make provision for his children under the Family Provision Act. This involved examining the circumstances of the applicant's estrangement from the testator and the impact this had on the testator's duty. Secondly, the court needed to assess the sufficiency of the provision made for the applicant in the will and determine if it was adequate in light of the statutory obligations. The court also had to consider the relevance of the estrangement period and its effect on the testator's duty to provide for the applicant.

The court found that the testator had a duty to make provision for his children, but this duty could be affected by the length of estrangement and the circumstances surrounding it. In this case, the court determined that the testator's failure to make sufficient provision for the applicant was not adequately explained by the estrangement. The court held that the testator's duty extended beyond mere financial support and included a broader obligation to ensure his children were provided for in his will. The court concluded that the applicant's estrangement did not absolve the testator of his duty and ordered that the estate be distributed to provide for the applicant's reasonable needs.

Orders