DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Hartley v Hartley [2021] QDC 323
PARTIES:
CRAIG ANDREW HARTLEY (UNDER PART 4 OF THE SUCCESSION ACT)
(Applicant)
v
SHANE MICHAEL HARTLEY (AS EXECUTOR OF THE WILL OF SHIRLEY LILLIAN HARTLEY (DECEASED))
(Respondent)
FILE NO: 27 of 2017
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
Cairns
DELIVERED ON:
14 December 2021
DELIVERED AT:
Cairns
HEARING DATE:
12 & 13 May 2021
JUDGE:
Morzone QC DCJ
ORDER:
1. I will hear further submissions from the parties about the form of order consistent with this decision, and any application as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:
SUCCESSION – FAMILY PROVISION - ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS – CHILD – adult son – whether applicant adult son left without adequate provision – consideration of nature of the relationship between the deceased and the applicant and whether disentitling conduct – whether provision ought be made.
LEGISLATION:
Succession Act 1981 (Qld) ss 40, 41(1) & 41(2)(c)
CASES: Blore v Lang (1960) 104 CLR 124
Bosch v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd (1938) AC 463
Freeman & Ors v Jacques [2006] 1 Qd R 318
Hills v Chalk & Ors [2008] QCA 159
Hughes v National Trustees, Executors and Agency Company of Australia Limited (1979) 143 CLR 13
Perpetual Trustee Queensland Ltd v Mayne [1992] QCA 417
Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith v. Scales (1962) 107 CLR 9
Re Hallahan (1918) 18 SR (NSW)
Re Hatte [1943] St R Qd 1
Re Sinnott [1948] VLR 279 at 280
Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201
Stewart v Stewart [2015] QSC 238
White v Barron (1980) 144 CLR 431COUNSEL: T Naylor for the Applicant
D Topp for the RespondentSOLICITORS: Maurice Blackburn Lawyers for the Applicant
Cairns Beaches Law & Conveyancing for the Respondent
Introduction
The 49 year old applicant who was expressly excluded from his deceased mother’s will now applies for adequate provision for his proper maintenance and support from her estate.
The deceased died over 5 years ago on 4 June 2016. She was survived by her four sons – Shane aged 52 who is also the executor, Peter who is nearly 51, the 49 year old applicant, and Damian aged 45. In her last will made on 2 March 2015, the deceased bequeathed three house properties to the applicant’s brothers and a car to Shane, with the residue to be shared between the applicant’s brothers. The will makes no provision for the applicant, and the deceased expressly explains his exclusion in a statutory declaration
The applicant endures in hopeless circumstances receiving the disability support pension because of a sports injury suffered when he was about 20 years old, he lives in community housing and has no assets. The applicant argues that these circumstances are a product of his disruptive and traumatic upbringing, exposure to drugs and alcohol from an early age and drug abuse since about 13 years old. The applicant has suffered from drug and alcohol addiction, served imprisonment for drug related offending, had stolen from his mother, needed significant financial and…
Continue reading Hartley v Hartley
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hartley v Hartley [2021] QDC 323
- Case
- [2021] QDC 323
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant, who was an adult son, had been left without adequate provision for his maintenance, support, and benefit. The court also needed to consider the nature of the relationship between the deceased and the applicant, and whether any disentitling conduct occurred. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether any provision ought to be made in favour of the applicant under the Family Provision Act 1969 (Qld).
The court considered the evidence presented regarding the relationship between the deceased and the applicant, including any disentitling conduct. The court also assessed the financial circumstances of the applicant and the assets available in the estate. In reaching its decision, the court applied the relevant statutory criteria and considered the relevant case law. The court determined that the applicant was not left without adequate provision for his maintenance, support, and benefit, and that no provision ought to be made in his favour. The court also found that the applicant's conduct did not amount to disentitling conduct.
The court ordered that the applicant's claim under the Family Provision Act 1969 (Qld) be dismissed. The court further ordered that the parties be given an opportunity to make further submissions about the form of order consistent with this decision, and any application as to costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. I will hear further submissions from the parties about the form of order consistent with this decision, and any application 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.