Hurst v Public Trustee

The case of Hurst v Public Trustee involves an application by the brother of the deceased, who had provided care for the deceased during his later years. The brother, the applicant, sought an increase in the provision made for him in the deceased's will, claiming that he had made promises to leave the applicant half of the house. However, the will only provided for two-thirds of the house to be left to the brother. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court included whether the promises made by the deceased constituted an agreement that would warrant an increase in the provision for the brother, and if the court had the authority to make an order that deviated from the terms of the will. The court had to consider the applicable statutory provisions and precedents concerning family provision applications under the Family Provision Act 1969 (Vic).

The court found that the deceased's promises constituted an agreement, which the brother had relied upon to his detriment. The court noted that the brother had provided care for the deceased and had forgone opportunities for personal gain during this period. The court also considered the statutory criteria for making an order under the Family Provision Act, which included whether the deceased had failed or neglected to make reasonable financial provision for the applicant. Given the brother's care for the deceased and the disparity between the promised and actual provision, the court concluded that it was appropriate to increase the provision for the brother.

As a result, the court made an order that increased the provision for the brother, reflecting the promises made by the deceased and the brother's care for the deceased during his later life. The exact terms of the order were not specified in the summary.