Hobbs, Herman and Valastro v Russo

Hobbs, Herman and Valastro v Russo was a case in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The deceased left his entire estate to one of his children, despite having seven other children. Three of the deceased’s daughters, Rosa Valastro, Mary Herman and Elizabeth Hobbs, applied for further and better provision from the estate, asserting that the deceased had not made sufficient provision for them. The applicants argued that the deceased had a moral duty to provide for them, and that the sole beneficiary of the estate, who was intellectually disabled, was unable to manage the estate effectively.

The court needed to determine whether the deceased had failed to make sufficient provision for the applicants, and whether the deceased had a moral duty to provide for them. The court found that the deceased had made provision for the applicants during his lifetime, and that the will reflected his intention not to make further provision for them. The court held that the deceased had discharged his moral duty to the applicants by making provision for them during his lifetime. The court also found that the applicants were not left with insufficient provision, as they had received significant gifts from the deceased during his lifetime.

The court ordered that Rosa Valastro receive $100,000 from the estate, but dismissed the claims of Mary Herman and Elizabeth Hobbs. The court also ordered that the payment to Rosa Valastro be subject to the making of a protection order, and gave the parties leave to make written submissions on the issue of costs. The court held that the deceased had made sufficient provision for the applicants during his lifetime, and that there was no failure to make sufficient provision for them under the Succession Act 1981 (Qld).