Legal Research
Cases
Hampson v Hampson

Hampson v Hampson

Case [2010] NSWSC 217 26 March 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Hampson v Hampson - Estate of the late Iris Willena HAMPSON [2010] NSWSC 217
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 9, 10, 11 March 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
26 March 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Bryson AJ at 1

DECISION: 2009/00287749:
(1) Order that the plaintiff be allowed the period up to and including 27 February 2009 for her application.
(2) Order that by way of provision for the plaintiff Lynne Michelle Hampson and in lieu of the provision made for her under the Will of the testatrix she be paid $300,000 out of the assets of the testatrix, with interest at six per cent per annum calculated from the date on which she vacates Lot 2.
(3) Order that in the calculation of entitlements on distribution the provision of $300,000 be made available by charging $60,000 against the assets otherwise distributable to each of Gary Geoffrey Hampson, Donald William Hampson and Robert Keith Hampson and by charging $40,000 against the assets otherwise distributable to each of Ian Charles Hampson, Gaye Maree Devoy and Glen James Hampson.
(4) Costs reserved.
(5) Order 1 of the orders of 7 April 2009 ceases to have effect.
(6) Direct that the plaintiff Lynne Michelle Hampson give up occupation of Lot 2 when at least $50,000 of the provision hereby ordered shall have been paid to her; but she is not required to give up occupation before 28 days from the date of these orders.
2008/00281293:
(1) Dismiss the proceedings with costs.
(2) Order that the costs payable to the defendant under these orders be retained by him out of assets otherwise distributable to Glen James Hampson.
(3) Direct that Glen James Hampson give up occupation of Lot 12 by or before 28 days from the date of these orders.

CATCHWORDS: EQUITY – Proprietary estoppel – Geoffrey owned farm at Main Arm and had seven adult children – Geoffrey died in 1995 and left all land to widow Iris – Iris died in 2007 and left all property all seven children equally – youngest son Glen claimed entitlement by proprietary estoppel to part of land with old cottage based on assurances and encouragement by Geoffrey – consideration of protection of Iris as registered proprietor - HELD Glen’s claim failed because he did not obtain findings that the assurances and encouragement he alleged had actually happened. - FAMILY PROVISION – Claims by adult son aged 43, owned business earning $35,000 p.a. net but no other significant assets, left about $200,000 as one-seventh share of mother’s estate – HELD adequate provision in the Will, claim failed. Claim by adult daughter aged 38, no significant assets, supporting parent of two children aged 3 and 11, no employment, left about $200,000 in Will – HELD provision $300,000 ordered in lieu of benefits under Will. Consideration of significance of other claims and balancing process.

LEGISLATION CITED: Conveyancing Act 1919, ss 23C, 23D, 54A
Family Provision Act

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 Hampson v Hampson

Details

AGLC: Hampson v Hampson - Estate of the late Iris Willena Hampson [2010] NSWSC 217
Case: [2010] NSWSC 217
Decision Date: 26 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hampson v Hampson, the dispute arose between members of the Hampson family concerning the distribution of property following the deaths of Geoffrey and Iris Hampson. The youngest son, Glen, sought a proprietary estoppel claim to a portion of the family farm, based on assurances made by Geoffrey. Additionally, two of Geoffrey and Iris's adult children, a son and a daughter, sought to have their mother's will invalidated on the basis of inadequate provision under the Family Provision Act 1969 (Qld). The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issues that the court had to resolve were whether Glen was entitled to a proprietary estoppel claim over part of the farm and whether the son and daughter had been inadequately provided for under the will. Specifically, the court had to determine if Glen's claim was substantiated by sufficient evidence of assurances and encouragement from Geoffrey, and whether the provisions made to the son and daughter in the will were adequate under the Family Provision Act.

The court found that Glen's proprietary estoppel claim failed because he could not establish that the alleged assurances and encouragement from Geoffrey had actually occurred. The court emphasised the importance of Iris's position as the registered proprietor and the lack of evidence to support Glen's claim. Regarding the family provision claims, the court held that the son's claim was unsuccessful as he was adequately provided for under the will, given his business and income. Conversely, the daughter's claim was successful, and the court ordered that she be provided with an additional $300,000 in lieu of the benefits she would have received under the will. The court balanced the daughter's needs against the other claims and the overall estate.

The court ordered that the daughter be provided with an additional $300,000. No other orders were made regarding the son's claim or Glen's proprietary estoppel claim.

Orders