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 2009JURISDICTION: 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 & AnorFILE NUMBER(S): SC 4360/2006; 5745/2007 COUNSEL: Mr JS Drummond for plaintiffs
Mr CF Hodgson for defendantsSOLICITORS: Friedlieb Byrne for plaintiffs
Tress Cox for defendants
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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2009] NSWSC 137
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.