Gabriele v Gabriele (No 2) - [2015] VSC 165

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
CIVIL LIST

S CI 2014 01032

IN THE MATTER of PART IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958

and

IN THE MATTER of the Will and Estate of Rosa Ranieri deceased

BETWEEN

PASQUALIE GABRIELE	Plaintiff
And
VALERIO GABRIELE (AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE ROSA RANIERI Deceased)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	KAYE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 April 2015 (Written Submissions)
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 April 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Gabriele v Gabriele (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 165

---

TESTATOR’S FAMILY MAINTENANCE – Provision ordered in favour of plaintiff – Provision to be subject to a protective trust – Trust to be administered by Senior Master of Court.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr T Messer	Estate Lawyers
For the Defendant	Ms A Moore (appeared as McKenzie friend)

HIS HONOUR:

In this matter, I delivered reasons for judgment on 1 April 2015.[1] I concluded that, pursuant to s 91 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958, the plaintiff should be entitled to provision from the estate of the testatrix in the sum of $70,000. In delivering judgment, I reserved three questions for further submission by the parties, namely:
[1]Gabriele v Gabriele [2015] VSC 115.

(a) The form in which the legacy should be paid to the plaintiff, and, in particular, whether it should be placed on a protective trust for his benefit.

(b) Whether I should grant a stay on the order to enable the defendant a reasonable time to pay the legacy to or on behalf of the plaintiff from the assets of the estate.

(c)The question of costs.

After delivering judgment, I heard submissions relating to the question of costs. I concluded that, in the circumstances of the case, costs should only be allowed on a standard basis. At the request of the parties, I fixed that sum of costs in the amount of $30,000.

After ruling on the question of costs, I adjourned the matter, to enable the parties to file written submissions on the remaining two questions that I have mentioned above. Counsel for the plaintiff filed an outline of submissions in relation to the first issue. However, I have not received any further submissions from the defendant, or his McKenzie friend, notwithstanding communications by my associate to the McKenzie friend reminding her that the defendant had the opportunity to make submissions in relation to those two matters. In those circumstances, I shall now proceed to deliver my reasons in relation to the remaining issues, and to make final orders in the matter.

In my reasons for judgment, I referred to a number of matters, relating to the circumstances of the plaintiff, which raised the issue as to whether I should direct the legacy to the plaintiff be placed on a protective trust for his benefit. In his written outline of submissions, counsel for the plaintiff has opposed…

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 Gabriele v Gabriele (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Gabriele v Gabriele (No 2) [2015] VSC 165
Case: [2015] VSC 165
Decision Date: 28 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Gabriele v Gabriele (No 2) involved a dispute between Gabriele and his former spouse regarding a provision for maintenance made in the will of the deceased. The deceased had made a provision for his former spouse, Gabriele, which was challenged by his children. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central legal issue was whether the provision made for the former spouse was valid and, if so, how it should be administered.

The court had to determine if the provision for maintenance in the will was valid and enforceable, considering the statutory requirements for such provisions under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). It also had to decide the appropriate method for administering the provision to ensure the former spouse’s maintenance needs were met while protecting the interests of the deceased’s estate. The court concluded that the provision was valid and enforceable but needed to be administered in a manner that ensured it was used solely for the intended purpose of maintenance. To achieve this, the court ordered that the provision be subject to a protective trust, with the Senior Master of the Court appointed as the trustee responsible for its administration.

The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the provision was used exclusively for the maintenance of the former spouse and not diverted for other purposes. The decision reflected a careful balance between honouring the deceased's wishes and protecting the estate from potential misuse. The court’s ruling provided a clear framework for administering the provision, safeguarding the former spouse’s entitlement while ensuring the integrity of the deceased’s estate. The final orders included a direction that the provision be held in a protective trust, with the Senior Master of the Court as trustee, to oversee its administration according to the court’s directions.

Orders