Griffiths v Craigie

Case [2014] NSWSC 1339


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Griffiths v Craigie [2014] NSWSC 1339
Hearing dates:22 September 2014
Decision date: 02 October 2014
Jurisdiction:Equity Division
Before: Hallen J
Decision:

Direct the parties to bring in Short Minutes of Order reflecting the reasons for judgment within 14 days. Stand over the proceedings to deal with any outstanding argument on the form of the Short Minutes of Order

Catchwords: SUCCESSION - FAMILY PROVISION - The Plaintiff, a minor grandchild of the deceased, applies by tutor for a family provision order under Chapter 3 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) - The Defendant, a daughter of the deceased, to whom Probate of the deceased's Will was granted - No dispute that Plaintiff is an eligible person or that there are factors which warrant the making of his application - Whether adequate and proper provision not made in Will of the deceased for the Plaintiff - Other claims by another daughter and another grandchild made for family provision orders and resolved - Estate distributed to Defendant as trustee of a testamentary trust - No question that Defendant will satisfy order for provision made in favour of the Plaintiff - Nature and quantum of provision to be made for the Plaintiff
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW)
Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW)
Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW)
Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW)
Succession Act 2006 (NSW)
Succession Amendment (Family Provision) Act 2008 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Alexander v Jansson [2010] NSWCA 176
Allardice, In re, Allardice v Allardice (1909) 29 NZLR 959
Andrew v Andrew [2012] NSWCA 308; (2012) 81 NSWLR 656
Aubrey v Kain [2014] NSWSC 15
Bartlett v Coomber [2008] NSWCA 100
Bosch v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd [1938] AC 463
Bowditch v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2012] NSWSC 275
Butcher v Craig [2009] WASC 164
Churton v Christian (1988) 13 NSWLR 241
Collins v McGain [2003] NSWCA 190
de Angelis v de Angelis [2003] VSC 432
Devereaux-Warnes v Hall (No 3) [2007] WASCA 235; (2007) 35 WAR 127
Diver v Neal [2009] NSWCA 54
Doshen v Pedisich [2013] NSWSC 1507
Edgar v Public Trustee for the Northern Territory [2011] NTSC 5
ERS Engines Pty Ltd v Wilson (1994) 35 NSWLR 193
Foley v Ellis [2008] NSWCA 288
Fulop, Deceased, Re (1987) 8 NSWLR 679
Gardiner v Gardiner (Supreme Court (NSW), Santow J, 28 May 1998, unrep)
Goodman v Windeyer [1980] HCA 31; (1980) 144 CLR 490
Goodsell v Wellington [2011] NSWSC 1232
Gorton v Parks (1989) 17 NSWLR 1
Grey v Harrison [1997] 2 VR 359
Hampson v Hampson [2010] NSWCA 359
Hyland v Burbidge [2000] NSWSC 12
In the Estate of the late Anthony Marras [2014] NSWSC 915
Janette Susan Gardiner v Raymond James Gardiner as Administrator of the Estate of the Late Dulcie Eva Gardiner [2014] NSWSC 435
Justyn Marcus Ng v Neville Mark Morgan; Selena Natanie Ng v Morgan; Commonwealth Bank…

Continue reading Griffiths v Craigie

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Griffiths v Craigie [2014] NSWSC 1339
Case
[2014] NSWSC 1339
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute over the distribution of the estate of a deceased person. The Plaintiff, a minor grandchild of the deceased, applied for a family provision order under Chapter 3 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). The Defendant, a daughter of the deceased, had been granted Probate of the deceased's Will. The Plaintiff argued that the Will did not make adequate and proper provision for him. Other claims by another daughter and another grandchild for family provision orders were also made and resolved. The court was tasked with determining whether the Will had made adequate and proper provision for the Plaintiff.

The court had to decide whether the Will of the deceased made adequate and proper provision for the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's eligibility and the existence of factors warranting his application were not disputed. The court examined the nature and quantum of the provision that should be made for the Plaintiff, considering the distribution of the estate to the Defendant as trustee of a testamentary trust. The court noted that the Defendant would be able to satisfy any order made in favour of the Plaintiff.

The court concluded that the Will did not make adequate and proper provision for the Plaintiff. It ordered that the Defendant, as trustee of the testamentary trust, should make provision for the Plaintiff. The exact nature and quantum of the provision were to be determined at a later date. This decision provided clarity for the distribution of the estate and addressed the Plaintiff's claim for family provision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.