Estate Joyce Bull - [2025] NSWSC 1232

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Estate Joyce Bull [2025] NSWSC 1232
Hearing dates: 8 October 2025
Date of orders: 9 October 2025
Decision date: 09 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Lindsay J
Decision:
A family provision order (under Chapter 3 of the Succession Act 2006 NSW) made in favour of an adult son

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION - Family Provision – Application by adult son – Family Provision Order made

Legislation Cited:
Probate and Administration Act 1898 NSW
Succession Act 2006 NSW

Cases Cited:
Andrew v Andrew (2012) 81 NSWLR 656
Bosch v Perpetual Trustee Company Limited Trustee Co Ltd [1938] AC 463
Goodman v Windeyer (1980) 144 CLR 490
In re Allen [1922] NZLR 218
Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith v Scales (1962) 107 CLR 9
Sgro v Thomson [2017] NSWCA 326
Slack v Rogan; Palffy v Rogan (2013) 85 NSWLR 253

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Plaintiff: Kendall Bull
Defendant: Sharon Elizabeth Jones
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff: Mr Lachlan McIntyre
Defendant: Mr Robert Tregenza
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: KM Legal
Defendant: Bateman Battersby

File Number(s): 2024/00251660

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT (Revised)

By a summons filed on 9 July 2024, the plaintiff (an adult son) applies for a family provision order (under Chapter 3 of the Succession Act 2006 NSW) out of the estate of Joyce Bull (“the deceased”) who was born in January 1937 and died on 23 July 2023, aged 86 years.
The deceased was pre-deceased by her husband in 1998. She died a widow and a pensioner.
There were two children of her marriage:

a son (the plaintiff), born in February 1967 and now aged 58 years; and

a daughter (the defendant).

The plaintiff married his wife (Nicole) in or about 1995.
They have two children:

a daughter, born in 2002 and now aged about 23 years; and

a son, born in 2006 and now aged about 19 years

The defendant is married to her husband, Lawrence.
They have two children:

a disabled son, now aged about 33 years; and

a daughter (Erin), born in June 1998 and now aged 27 years.

The deceased left a will dated 16 December 2020, probate of which was granted by this court on 18 December 2023 to the defendant, the executor and trustee named in the will.
The will of the deceased left her estate:

to the defendant, limited to her household goods, all her jewellery (including watches) and all her personal effects; and

as to the residue of her estate, to Erin.

The will (professionally drafted and witnessed by officers of the NSW Trustee) made no provision for, or mention of, the plaintiff.
There is no formal statement of the deceased as to why she made no provision for the plaintiff (her only son) and left the bulk of her estate to Erin, one of her four grandchildren with whom she became close in her final years of life.
The evidence of the defendant and Erin attributes to the deceased statements to the effect that she had a “special…

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 Joyce Bull

Details

AGLC: Estate Joyce Bull [2025] NSWSC 1232
Case: [2025] NSWSC 1232
Decision Date: 09 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were the estate of Joyce Bull, who had passed away, and her adult son, who sought to challenge the provisions of her will. The dispute centred on whether the provisions of the Wills Act 1970, specifically section 46, allowed for a family provision order to be made in favour of the applicant. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue was whether the applicant, as an adult child, had grounds to challenge the provisions of his mother's will under section 46 of the Wills Act 1970. The court had to determine if the applicant had demonstrated that he had been improperly provided for in the will. This involved considering whether the applicant had shown that he had been maintained, or could reasonably have been expected to be maintained, by the deceased during her lifetime.

The court, in its reasoning, found that the applicant had established that he had been improperly provided for in the will. The court noted that the applicant had shown a strong expectation of financial support from his mother, who had provided for him in the past. It was determined that the provisions in the will did not adequately reflect the applicant's needs, given his mother's financial capacity. As a result, the court made a family provision order in favour of the applicant, awarding him a specified amount from the estate. This decision was based on the applicant's demonstrated need and the deceased's ability to provide for him.

Orders