Hanlon v Evans English v Evans

Link copied
Case Copied 28 min read
CITATION: Hanlon v Evans English v Evans [2009] NSWSC 137
HEARING DATE(S): 08/12/08, 09/12/08, 05/03/09, 10/03/09
 
JUDGMENT DATE : 

3 June 2009
JURISDICTION: Equity Division
JUDGMENT OF: Macready AsJ at 1
CATCHWORDS: Family Provision. Application for provision by two daughters of deceased. Deceased owned part of country property which was left mainly to a son. Orders for further provision in favour of plaintiffs.
PARTIES: Elizabeth Ellen Hanlon v David Lewis Evans & Anor
Robyn Anne English v David Lewis Evans & Anor
FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4360/2006; 5745/2007
COUNSEL: Mr JS Drummond for plaintiffs
Mr CF Hodgson for defendants
SOLICITORS: Friedlieb Byrne for plaintiffs
Tress Cox for defendants
- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

Associate Justice Macready

Wednesday 3 June 2009

4360/06 Elizabeth Ellen Hanlon v David Lewis Evans & David John Evans
5745/07 Robwyn Anne English v David Lewis Evans & David John Evans

JUDGMENT

1 His Honour: This is the hearing of two applications under the Family Provision Act 1982 in respect of the estate of the late Mavis Evans who died on 18 June 2005. Her two daughters, Elizabeth Hanlon (“Elizabeth”) and Robwyn English (“Robwyn”), are the plaintiffs in the proceedings. The deceased was also survived by her son, David Evans (“David”), the second defendant, in the proceedings and her husband, Mr David Lewis Evans (“ Mr Lew Evans”), the first defendant.

The last will of the deceased

2 By her last will and testament dated 14 July 1992 the deceased appointed Lew Evans and her son David as her executors and trustees. Clause 3 of the will provided for the whole of her property “both real and personal” to be held upon trust:

          “(a) to pay the income to my husband David Lewis Evans during his lifetime.
          (b) on the death of my husband to hold the capital as well as the income upon trust:
              (i) as to all family lands owned by me at the date of my death UPON TRUST for my son the said DAVID JOHN EVANS SUBJECT TO the payment by my said son to each of my daughters ELIZABETH ELLEN HANLON and ROBWYN ANNE ROBINSON of the sum of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000). The said amount of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) payable to each of my said daughters shall be paid by my said son within a period of twelve (12) months from the date of death of the survivor of myself and my husband and further subject to the payment by my said son of my just debts and general testamentary expenses.
              (ii) as to the residue of my estate UPON TRUST for my daughters the said ELIZABETH ELLEN HANLON and ROBWYN ANNE ROBINSON who survive me and if both survive as tenants in common in equal shares.”

3 Mr Lew Evans, the deceased’s husband, is still alive and he is entitled to his life interest.

The estate of the deceased

4 The net distributable value of the estate before deduction of any…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hanlon v Evans English v Evans and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2009] NSWSC 137
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants in this matter, the two daughters of the deceased, sought further provision from the estate of their father who had passed away. The deceased had owned part of a country property, which he left to his son, while the applicants received smaller gifts. The court was tasked with determining whether the deceased had made inadequate provision for the applicants under the Family Provision Act. The central issue was whether the deceased's actions were unjust or inequitable in failing to provide for the daughters, considering the contributions they had made to his welfare and the overall circumstances of the estate.

The court examined the provisions of the Family Provision Act, focusing on whether the deceased had made adequate provision for the applicants. It was necessary to assess the deceased's contributions to the estate, the applicants' contributions to the deceased's welfare, and the overall circumstances surrounding the estate. The court found that the deceased had not made adequate provision for the applicants, particularly considering their substantial contributions to his care and wellbeing. The court emphasised the importance of considering the unique circumstances of each case when determining whether the deceased's actions were unjust or inequitable.

As a result, the court ordered that the estate provide further sums to the applicants to ensure that they were adequately provided for. This decision recognised the significant contributions the applicants had made to the deceased's welfare and the overall circumstances of the estate. The court's ruling served to highlight the importance of considering the unique circumstances of each case when determining whether the deceased's actions were unjust or inequitable under the Family Provision Act. The deceased's estate was ordered to make additional payments to the applicants, ensuring they received adequate provision for their future needs.

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.