Grant v Roberts; Smith v Smith; Roberts v Smith; Curtis v Smith

The four appeals before the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia concerned the estate of the late Michael John Smith, with various family members seeking adjustments to his will to provide for their maintenance, education, and advancement in life. The deceased had left his estate to his wife, and upon her death, to their two adult children, with no mention of the two other children and his sister. The applicants argued that the deceased had not made adequate provision for them. The primary judge had dismissed the applications, holding that the deceased had made adequate provision for the applicants in his will. The applicants appealed this decision, contending that the deceased had not adequately provided for them.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the deceased had made adequate provision for the proper maintenance, education, and advancement in life of the applicants in his will. The court also considered whether the applicants had established that the deceased had created an express, constructive, or resulting trust over the estate in their favour. The applicants argued that the deceased had a moral obligation to provide for them, and that the deceased had breached this obligation by not providing for them in his will. The court needed to examine the deceased's intentions and whether the will reflected those intentions.

The court found that the deceased had made adequate provision for the applicants in his will. The court held that the deceased had not created an express, constructive, or resulting trust over the estate in favour of the applicants. The court found that the deceased had made a moral obligation to provide for the applicants, but that this obligation was not enforceable in law. The court found that the deceased had made adequate provision for the applicants by leaving them with a substantial legacy, which was sufficient to provide for their maintenance, education, and advancement in life. The court also found that the deceased had not breached any moral obligation to the applicants by not providing for them in his will.

The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the primary judge's decision. The applicants were not entitled to any further provision from the estate of the deceased. The court held that the deceased had made adequate provision for the applicants in his will, and that the applicants were not entitled to any further provision from the estate. The court found that the applicants had not established that the deceased had created an express, constructive, or resulting trust over the estate in their favour. The court held that the deceased had not breached any moral obligation to the applicants by not providing for them in his will. The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the primary judge's decision.