Hunt v Black

Case [2016] VSC 59


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

TESTATOR’S FAMILY MAINTENANCE LIST

SCI 2013 6497

IN THE MATTER of Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958

and

IN THE MATTER of the Will and Estate of John Niel Black (deceased)

MADILYN JAYNE HUNT (by her litigation guardian Kathryn Jane Hunt)

Plaintiff

v

EVE MARIE BLACK (in the Will called EVE MARIE CUMMING) & ORS

Defendants

SCI 2013 6500

CARL GERARD HUNT

Plaintiff

v

EVE MARIE BLACK (in the Will called EVE MARIE CUMMING) & ORS

Defendants

---

JUDGE:

Cameron J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

23 - 24 September 2015

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

26 February 2016

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Hunt v Black & Ors

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2016] VSC 59

---

TESTATOR’S FAMILY MAINTENANCE – Application by adult stepson for further provision – Whether deceased’s responsibility to adult stepson discharged – Further provision ordered – Extent of provision – Administration and Probate Act 1958, s 91.

TESTATOR’S FAMILY MAINTENANCE – Application by underage disabled step grandchild for further provision – Whether deceased had responsibility to provide for underage step grandchild – Where deceased contemplated setting up a trust for step grandchild – Where trust was not established – Further provision denied.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Plaintiff

Mr B. Gillies

John Keating Associates

For the Defendant

Mr P. Crofts

Taits Legal

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

  1. John Niel Black was a dairy farmer.  He died in an accident on his farm on 4 November 2012.  Throughout the proceedings, Mr Black was referred to as ‘Niel’ and, without any disrespect to him or his family, I propose to refer to him in that fashion in this judgment.

  1. Niel married his first wife, Josie, in 1981.  Josie had been married before she married Niel.  Josie had three sons from that first marriage.  Josie died and Niel married again.

  1. Carl Gerard Hunt (‘Carl’) is Josie’s youngest son, so he was Niel’s stepson.

  1. Madilyn Jayne Hunt (‘Madilyn’) is Carl’s daughter, so Niel’s step granddaughter.

  1. Niel married his first wife, Josie, in 1981, when he was aged 43 years.  It was his first marriage.  Josie had three sons from her first marriage, Martin Simon Hunt (‘Simon’), Marcus Michael Hunt (‘Marcus’) and Carl.  Josie died on 11 September 2009, after a battle with cancer.

  1. In 2011, Niel married his second wife, Eve Black (‘Eve’), for whom it has been conceded that adequate provision has been made in Niel’s will.  Niel and Eve did not have any children and Eve makes no claim on the estate.

  1. Carl and Madilyn (by her litigation guardian) are plaintiffs in the two proceedings before this Court.

  1. Probate over Niel’s will (which was dated 25 February 2011) was granted by this Court on 23 July 2013.  Probate was granted to Niel’s second wife, Eve, his accountant, Anthony Davis, and his stepson, Simon, (who was Niel’s first wife’s son and the brother of Carl).  It was common ground that the estate has a…

Continue reading Hunt v Black

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hunt v Black [2016] VSC 59
Case
[2016] VSC 59
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hunt v Black involved a dispute between the deceased's estate and his stepson, who sought additional maintenance, as well as his underage disabled step-grandchild, who also sought further provision. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the deceased had a responsibility to provide for his stepson and step-grandchild under the Administration and Probate Act 1958, and if so, the extent of that provision.

The court considered the deceased's testamentary intentions and whether his responsibility to provide for his stepson and step-grandchild had been discharged. It was noted that the deceased had contemplated setting up a trust for the step-grandchild but had not established it prior to his death. The court had to determine if the stepson and step-grandchild were entitled to further provision from the estate. The court found that the deceased's responsibility to provide for his stepson had not been fully discharged, and ordered further provision be made. Conversely, the court found that the deceased's responsibility to provide for the step-grandchild had been discharged, and denied the application for further provision.

The court's reasoning was based on the deceased's testamentary intentions and the circumstances surrounding the establishment of the trust for the step-grandchild. The court concluded that the stepson was entitled to further provision from the estate, while the step-grandchild's application was denied. The court's final orders were that the estate should provide further provision to the stepson and deny the step-grandchild's application for further provision.

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.