Legal Research
Cases
Dolman v Palmer

Dolman v Palmer

Case [2005] NSWSC 327 31 May 2005

Family Provision Act 1982

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
Dolman & Anor v Palmer [2005] NSWSC 327

HEARING DATE(S): 29/03/05, 30/03/05 and 31/03/05

JUDGMENT DATE :

31 May 2005

JURISDICTION:
Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF:
Master Macready at 1

DECISION:
Paragraph 88

CATCHWORDS:
Family Provision. Application by an ex wife and daughter of deceased. Property settlement with ex wife affected by deceased's failure to fully disclose his assets. Existence of factors warranting the making of the application under s9(1) of the Family Provision Act 1982. - Daughter deliberately cuts off all contact with deceased for last 12 years of deceased's life. Her claim dismissed.

PARTIES:
Fiona Dolman & Pamella Dolman v Michael John Palmer (Estate of late William Lance Dolman)

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 6383 of 2003

COUNSEL:
Mr D.E. Grieve QC with Ms D. Coulton for plaintiffs
Mr C.J. Bevan for defendant

SOLICITORS:
Vizzone Ruggero & Associates for plaintiffs
Turner Freeman for defendant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

Master Macready

Tuesday 31 May 2005

6383/03 Fiona Ann Dolman and Pamella Anne Marea Dolman v Michael John Palmer

JUDGMENT

1 Master: This is the hearing of claims under the Family Provision Act 1982 in respect of the estate of the late William Lance Dolman who died on 2 April 2003 aged 71 years. He s survived by his two wives and his two children from his first marriage. The first plaintiff is the deceased's daughter and the second plaintiff is his first wife. The defendant is a friend of the deceased who was appointed his executor. The deceased’s second wife and a former de facto partner have been given notice of the proceedings and make no claim.

The last Will the deceased

2 The deceased made his last Will on 1 April 2003 and left his property as to one half share to his son Gregory. He gave 25% to his sister and brother-in-law Paula and John Chestnut, 7.5% to his nephew Colin Chestnut and his wife Jean, 5% to his sister and brother-in-law June and John Bennett, 2.5% to the defendant and his wife Jean, 5% to Eugene and Joyce Odgers and the remaining 5% to Sheryl M Lee, a former de facto partner. He made no provision for either plaintiff. The deceased left statutory declarations in which he set out the reasons why he made no such provision.

3 In respect to the first plaintiff he said:

“2 I have made no provision in my Will for my daughter Fiona Dolman for reasons including that she has made no contact with me, that is she has not visited me until very recently and has shown no interest in my welfare, even though she is aware that I have been ill in hospital. ”

4 In respect to the second plaintiff he said:

“3 I have made no provision in my Will for my ex-wife, Pamela Dolman, for reasons including the we have been divorced now for more than 10 years and, at about the time of our…

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 Dolman v Palmer

Details

AGLC: Dolman v Palmer [2005] NSWSC 327
Case: [2005] NSWSC 327
Decision Date: 31 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dolman v Palmer involves an application under section 9(1) of the Family Provision Act 1982 by a deceased man's ex-wife and daughter, seeking financial provision from his estate. The deceased had not fully disclosed his assets during their property settlement. The daughter, who had severed all ties with her father for the last twelve years of his life, and her mother were seeking financial support from his estate. The central legal issues in this case pertained to whether there were sufficient grounds to justify the court making a provision from the deceased's estate to the applicant under section 9(1) of the Family Provision Act 1982. This included the question of whether the daughter's severance of all contact with her father for the final twelve years of his life constituted a factor warranting a financial provision from the estate.

The court examined the relationship between the deceased and his daughter and determined that her deliberate severance of ties for such an extended period constituted a significant factor in the application. The court held that the daughter's claim was dismissed due to her lack of communication and connection with the deceased. The court found that the daughter's decision to sever all ties with her father for such a long period was a valid factor in determining whether to make a provision under section 9(1) of the Family Provision Act 1982. Consequently, the court decided not to make any provision from the estate to the daughter. However, the court did consider making a provision to the ex-wife, taking into account the failure of full disclosure of assets during the property settlement.

The final orders of the court were that no provision be made to the daughter, but that the court would consider making a provision to the ex-wife. The court did not specify the amount of the potential provision but noted that it would consider the full disclosure of assets and the overall circumstances of the case. The court's decision highlights the importance of maintaining family ties and the potential consequences of severing those ties when making financial provision applications under the Family Provision Act 1982.

Orders