Grimsley v Paul - [2021] QSC 78

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Grimsley v Paul [2021] QSC 78

PARTIES:

BARBARA MERLE GRIMSLEY

(applicant)

v
CHRISTOPHER LANCE PAUL AS EXECUTOR OF THE WILL OF EDGAR LEWIS WOOD (DECEASED)

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 1019 of 2020

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 April 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 and 3 December 2020

JUDGE:

Martin J

ORDER:

1. That, in lieu of $215,000, adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of Barbara Merle Grimsley be made out of the estate of Edgar Lewis Wood by payment of the sum of $750,000.

2. I will hear the parties as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

SUCCESSION – FAMILY PROVISION – REQUIREMENT FOR ADEQUATE AND PROPER MAINTENANCE – WHETHER APPLICANT LEFT WITH INSUFFICIENT PROVISION – CLAIMS BY CHILDREN – where the testator died leaving an estate worth approximately $4,400,000 – where a five percent provision was made for a stepchild of the testator – where the stepchild’s net worth was approximately $418,200 at trial – where the estate of the stepchild’s biological mother was almost entirely left to the testator – whether the provision made for the stepchild was inadequate in all the circumstances, and if so, what provision ought to be made

Succession Act 1981, s 40, s 41

Anasson v Phillips (Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales Equity Division, Young J, Eq 1125 of 1986, 4 March 1988)

Blore v Lang (1960) 104 CLR 124

Currey v Gault [2010] QSC 27

Daverniza v Darveniza and Drakos [2014] QSC 37

Freeman v Jaques [2006] 1 Qd R 318

Goodman v Windeyer (1980) 144 CLR 490

Graziani v Graziani (Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales Equity Division, Cohen J, Eq 2678 of 1985, 20 February 1987)

Hunter v Hunter(1987) 8 NSWLR 573

Permanent Trustee Co Ltd v Fraser (1995) 36 NSWLR 25

Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201

Vigolo v Bostin (2005) 221 CLR 191

White v Barron (1980) 144 CLR 431

COUNSEL:

AB Fraser for the applicant

DM Flaherty for the respondent
S Bhati (Solicitor) for Cameron Weston

SOLICITORS:

de Groots for the applicant

Caldwell Martin Cox for the respondent
Brander Smith McKnight Lawyers for Cameron Weston

Barbara Grimsley seeks an order for further provision from the estate of her deceased step-father, Edgar Wood.
Edgar Wood died on 14 May 2019. He was survived by the applicant and:
(a)his son, Cameron Weston, and
(b)his daughter, Stephanie Kennedy.
The net distributable estate is, depending upon a minor tax matter, either $4,430,937 or $4,348, 937. There is also superannuation of approximately $645,000 which is the subject of review by a Commonwealth body as to who is to benefit.
In his last will, Edgar Wood split his estate in the following way:
(a)to Cameron Weston – 45 per cent,
(b)to Stephanie Kennedy – 15 per cent,
(c)to the applicant – five per cent, and
(d)to identified friends and relatives – the balance.
The effect of that distribution is the applicant would…

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 Grimsley v Paul

Details

AGLC: Grimsley v Paul [2021] QSC 78
Case: [2021] QSC 78
Decision Date: 14 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Grimsley v Paul, the dispute arose from the distribution of the estate of Edgar Lewis Wood, who passed away leaving an estate valued at approximately $4,400,000. The primary issue was whether the provision made for Barbara Merle Grimsley, the stepchild of the deceased, was adequate for her proper maintenance and support, and if not, what additional provision should be made. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The court was required to examine the adequacy of the five percent provision made for the stepchild, considering her net worth at trial, which was approximately $418,200. The court also had to consider the significant assets left to the testator from the estate of the stepchild's biological mother, which almost entirely comprised the estate. The legal question was whether these circumstances justified a deviation from the standard five percent provision under the Family Provision Act.

The court concluded that the provision made for the stepchild was indeed inadequate, taking into account her net worth and the substantial assets inherited by the testator from another source. The court found that the stepchild was left with insufficient provision for her proper maintenance and support. As a result, the court ordered that adequate provision be made for the stepchild, directing that $750,000 be paid to her in lieu of the $215,000 originally provided. The court further indicated that it would hear submissions from the parties regarding the costs of the proceeding.

This decision highlights the court's consideration of the unique circumstances of each case when determining adequate maintenance under the Family Provision Act, ensuring that provisions reflect the individual needs and financial situations of the applicants.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That, in lieu of $215,000, adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of Barbara Merle Grimsley be made out of the estate of Edgar Lewis Wood by payment of the sum of $750,000.

2. I will hear the parties as to costs.

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.

CITATION:	Grimsley v Paul [2021] QSC 78
PARTIES:	BARBARA MERLE GRIMSLEY (applicant) v CHRISTOPHER LANCE PAUL AS EXECUTOR OF THE WILL OF EDGAR LEWIS WOOD (DECEASED) (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS No 1019 of 2020
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	14 April 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 and 3 December 2020
JUDGE:	Martin J
ORDER:	1. That, in lieu of $215,000, adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of Barbara Merle Grimsley be made out of the estate of Edgar Lewis Wood by payment of the sum of $750,000. 2. I will hear the parties as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	SUCCESSION – FAMILY PROVISION – REQUIREMENT FOR ADEQUATE AND PROPER MAINTENANCE – WHETHER APPLICANT LEFT WITH INSUFFICIENT PROVISION – CLAIMS BY CHILDREN – where the testator died leaving an estate worth approximately $4,400,000 – where a five percent provision was made for a stepchild of the testator – where the stepchild’s net worth was approximately $418,200 at trial – where the estate of the stepchild’s biological mother was almost entirely left to the testator – whether the provision made for the stepchild was inadequate in all the circumstances, and if so, what provision ought to be made Succession Act 1981, s 40, s 41 Anasson v Phillips (Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales Equity Division, Young J, Eq 1125 of 1986, 4 March 1988) Blore v Lang (1960) 104 CLR 124 Currey v Gault [2010] QSC 27 Daverniza v Darveniza and Drakos [2014] QSC 37 Freeman v Jaques [2006] 1 Qd R 318 Goodman v Windeyer (1980) 144 CLR 490 Graziani v Graziani (Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales Equity Division, Cohen J, Eq 2678 of 1985, 20 February 1987) Hunter v Hunter(1987) 8 NSWLR 573 Permanent Trustee Co Ltd v Fraser (1995) 36 NSWLR 25 Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201 Vigolo v Bostin (2005) 221 CLR 191 White v Barron (1980) 144 CLR 431
COUNSEL:	AB Fraser for the applicant DM Flaherty for the respondent S Bhati (Solicitor) for Cameron Weston
SOLICITORS:	de Groots for the applicant Caldwell Martin Cox for the respondent Brander Smith McKnight Lawyers for Cameron Weston