Fyffe v Fyffe - [2001] VSC 48

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COMMERCIAL & EQUITY DIVISION	Not Restricted

No. 4048 of 2001

SARA ALICE ELIZABETH FYFFE and MARK JAMES FYFFE	Plaintiffs
v
ROSLYN GAYLE FYFFE	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Bongiorno J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 February 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 March 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Fyffe v Fyffe
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 48

---

Wills and Estates – Testators Family Maintenance – Extension of time – Section 99 Administration and Probate Act 1958.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Ms. A. Ryan	Robertson Hyetts
For the Defendant	Mr. R. Pritchard	Lucas Neale

HIS HONOUR:

By an originating motion issued 10 January 2001 Sarah Alice Elizabeth Fyffe and her brother, Mark James Fyffe, seek an order pursuant to s. 99 Administration and Probate Act 1958 that the time within which they may make an application to the court pursuant to Part IV of that Act in relation to the estate of Jeffrey James Fyffe, deceased, be extended. In the event that they are successful, they seek consequential directions as to the conduct of the substantive application.

The deceased, Jeffrey James Fyffe, died on 25 June 1999. Probate of his will dated 28 August 1998 was granted to Roslyn Gail Fyffe on 6 March 2000.

Sarah Fyffe and Mark Fyffe are the daughter and adopted son of the deceased, respectively. The deceased’s will made no provision for them but contained a declaration by the deceased that he had “… made sufficient provision to (sic) them during my lifetime”.

The first plaintiff was born on 21 September 1982 and is the daughter of the deceased by his second wife, Marion Joy Fyffe. The second plaintiff was born on 18 October 1973 and is the son of Marion Joy Fyffe by a former relationship. He was legally adopted by the deceased.

The defendant, Roslyn Gail Fyffe, is the third wife of the deceased.

The first plaintiff’s upbringing appears to have been somewhat tumultuous. Her family life appears to have been dysfunctional and her schooling disrupted. She lived with her parents until they separated in October 1995 after which she lived with her mother. Her education concluded at secondary school in Year 10 although she subsequently undertook some TAFE studies.

After her father’s death the first plaintiff discussed his estate briefly with a solicitor in the context of attempting to obtain the return of personal items of hers allegedly retained by the defendant. She has no recollection of her solicitor telling her about a six month time limit for claims such as that which she now seeks to pursue. She was undergoing counselling at the time and found her situation confusing.

Some time after her eighteenth birthday in September 2000 the first plaintiff’s mother arranged for her to retain her current solicitor to advise her generally. Initially that advice concerned the disposal of a superannuation fund in which the deceased had an interest with AXA Australia. For some considerable time a question remained unanswered as to…

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 Fyffe v Fyffe

Details

AGLC: Fyffe v Fyffe [2001] VSC 48
Case: [2001] VSC 48
Decision Date: 2 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Fyffe v Fyffe involves a dispute between the deceased's children regarding the interpretation and execution of the deceased's will. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the children were entitled to an extension of time to apply for family maintenance under Section 99 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958.

The legal issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 99 of the Act, which allows for an extension of time for family maintenance applications. The children argued that the time limits imposed by the Act were inequitable and sought an extension beyond the prescribed period. The court was required to determine whether the children's circumstances warranted a departure from the strict application of the statutory time limits.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the principles of equity and the purpose of the statutory provisions. The court held that while the statutory time limits were generally mandatory, there may be exceptional circumstances where an extension could be granted. However, in this case, the court found that the children had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for an extension. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the statutory framework unless there were exceptional circumstances that warranted a departure. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for an extension of time.

The final orders of the court were that the application for an extension of time to apply for family maintenance under Section 99 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 was dismissed. The children were not granted the extension they sought, and the statutory time limits remained in effect.

Orders