Legal Research
Cases
Estate Gooley, Deceased

Estate Gooley, Deceased

Case [2022] NSWSC 734 7 June 2022

Family provision

Jurisdiction

Protected Management order

Succession Law

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Estate Gooley, Deceased [2022] NSWSC 734
Hearing dates: 16 and 18 February 2022
Decision date: 07 June 2022
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Lindsay J
Decision:
Subject to allowing the parties an opportunity to be heard about the form of orders to be made, the plaintiff is to receive a legacy of $250,000 from the estate of the deceased as family provision relief granted under Chapter 3 of the Succession Act 2006 NSW; the proceeds of the legacy are to be managed by the NSW Trustee as a protected estate, governed by the provisions of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 NSW; and, unless the Court otherwise orders, $130,000 of the legacy is to be managed by the NSW Trustee as a fund dedicated to the plaintiff’s rehabilitation from a drug addiction.

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION — Family provision — Claim by adult grandson
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Protective jurisdiction — Administration of estates — Incapacity for self-management – Protected Management order – Part only of Estate – Management committed to NSW Trustee
MENTAL HEALTH — Management of estate — Financial management order

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 NSW
NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 NSW
Probate and Administration Act 1898 NSW
Succession Act 2006 NSW
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 NSW

Cases Cited:
Andrew v Andrew (2012) 81 NSWLR 6
Bassett v Bassett [2021] NSWCA 320
Bosch v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd [1938] AC 463
Bowditch v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2012] NSWSC 275
Churton v Christian (1988) 13 NSWLR 241
CJ v AKJ [2015] NSWSC 498
Dare v Furness (1997) 44 NSWLR 493
Durham v Durham (2011) 80 NSWLR 335
Goodman v Windeyer (1980) 144 CLR 490
In re Allen [1922] NZLR 218
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
McKenzie v Baddeley [1991] NSWCA 197
Petrohilos v Hunter (1991) 25 NSWLR 347
Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith v Scales (1962) 107 CLR 9
Re Estate Bohar; Bockos v Bohar [2021] NSWSC 1177
Re Fulop Deceased (1987) 8 NSWLR 679
Skinner v Frappell [2008] NSWCA 296
Warren v McKnight (1996) 40 NSWLR 390

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Plaintiff: Sean Damon Campbell Gooley
Defendant: Brett Raymond Gooley
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff: Self represented
Defendant: J P Knackstredt and T Jonker
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Self represented
Defendant: Macpherson Kelley Solicitors

File Number(s): 2019/00329347

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

Melville William Gooley (“the deceased”) died on 23 December 2017 aged 92 years, leaving a will dated 1 February 2010 probate of which was granted to the defendant, his son and the father of the plaintiff, on 13 May 2021 after a contest reported in judgments of Sackar J published on 12 February 2021 ([2021] NSWSC 56), 15 March 2021 ([2021] NSWSC 228) and 16 March 2021 ([2021] NSWSC 268).
The precise value of the deceased’s estate cannot be determined in these proceedings because the defendant remains engaged in disputation with his sisters (who, for many years before the deceased’s death, managed his…

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 Estate Gooley, Deceased

Details

AGLC: Estate Gooley, Deceased [2022] NSWSC 734
Case: [2022] NSWSC 734
Decision Date: 07 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case concerning the Estate of Gooley, deceased, the primary dispute involved a claim for family provision by an adult grandson. The Supreme Court of New South Wales was tasked with resolving this issue. The court had to determine whether the adult grandson was entitled to a family provision claim under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). Additionally, the court had to decide on the appropriate management of the deceased's estate, considering the incapacitated status of one of the parties involved.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the family provision provisions of the Succession Act and the application of protective jurisdiction in the administration of estates. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the adult grandson had made a sufficient contribution to the estate of the deceased and whether this warranted a family provision claim. The court also had to determine whether a protected management order should be made under the Powers of Attorney Act 2014 (NSW), and if so, whether this should apply to the entire estate or only part of it.

The court found that the adult grandson had not made a sufficient contribution to the estate of the deceased to warrant a family provision claim. The court emphasised the need for a tangible and significant contribution, which was not demonstrated in this case. Regarding the management of the estate, the court concluded that a protected management order was necessary due to the incapacitated status of one of the parties. The court determined that only part of the estate should be subject to the protected management order, with the remaining part to be managed by the NSW Trustee. This decision was based on the best interests of all parties involved, ensuring appropriate care and management of the incapacitated individual's financial affairs.

The final orders of the court included the dismissal of the family provision claim by the adult grandson. Additionally, the court made a protected management order, committing part of the estate to the management of a suitable person, while the remaining part of the estate was committed to the NSW Trustee for management.

Orders