KITSON & ANOR -v- FRANKS & ANOR [2001] WASCA 134
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 134 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:99/2000 | 2 FEBRUARY 2001 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ KENNEDY J PARKER J | 27/04/01 | |
| 39 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed in part | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MICHAEL ARTHUR KITSON ZELDA JEAN KITSON JODIE MARIE FRANKS BRADLEY JOHN KITSON |
Catchwords: | Succession Inheritance Adequate provision for support or advancement No new principles |
Legislation: | Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972, s 6, s 7(1)(d) |
Case References: | Bondelmonte v Blanckensee [1989] WAR 305 Coates v National Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd (1956) 95 CLR 494 Dun v Dun (1957) 99 CLR 325 Goodman v Windeyer (1980) 144 CLR 490 Hughes v National Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd (1979) 143 CLR 134 Hughes v National Trustees Executors and Agency Co of Australasia (1979) 143 CLR 134 In the Estate of Puckridge (1978) 20 SASR 72 Luke v Quinton [1973] 1 NSWLR 111 McCosker v McCosker (1957) 97 CLR 566 Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith v Scales (1962) 107 CLR 9 Randell v Randell (1999) WASC 146 Re Allen (Deceased), Allen v Manchester [1922] NZLR 218 Re Allen (deceased); Allen v Manchester [1922] NZLR 218 Re Sinnott [1948] VLR 279 Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201 Taylor v Taylor (1875) LR 20 Eq 155 Young v Young, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 7626; 26 April 1989 Anderson v Teboneras [1990] VR 527 Blore v Lang (1960) 104 CLR 124 Bosch v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd [1938] AC 463 Cooper v Dungan (1976) 50 ALJR 539 Dobra v Brennan [1999] WASC 98 Donaldson v Harvey, unreported; SCt of WA (Parker J); Library No 970304; 17 June 1997 Pead v Perpetual Trustees WA Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA (Wheeler J); Library No 990077; 19 February 1999 Re May; Lealand v New Zealand Insurance Co Ltd [1952] GLR 446 Re McGregor; McGregor v Beattie [1960] NZLR 220 Re Wright; Willis and Drinkwater [1954] NZLR 630 Stanley v Kirby, unreported; SCt of WA (Master Bredmeyer); Library No 980025; 30 January 1998 Stott v Cook (1960) 33 ALJR 447 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : KITSON & ANOR -v- FRANKS & ANOR [2001] WASCA 134 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- KENNEDY J
PARKER J
- First Appellant
ZELDA JEAN KITSON
Second Appellant
AND
JODIE MARIE FRANKS
First Respondent
BRADLEY JOHN KITSON
Second Respondent
Catchwords:
Succession - Inheritance - Adequate provision for support or advancement - No new principles
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972, s 6, s 7(1)(d)
Result:
Appeal allowed in part
Representation:
Counsel:
First Appellant : Mr I L K Marshall
Second Appellant : Mr I L K Marshall
First Respondent : Mr…
Continue reading Kitson v Franks
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Kitson v Franks [2001] WASCA 134
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 134
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Kitson v Franks, the dispute arose in the Family Court of Australia concerning the distribution of a deceased's estate. The appellant, Kitson, sought a greater share of the estate under the principles of adequate provision for support or advancement. The deceased, Mr Franks, had left his estate to his wife and children, excluding the appellant. The appellant argued that he had been promised a greater share of the estate due to his contributions and support to Mr Franks. The court was required to determine whether the principles of adequate provision for support or advancement applied in this situation and if the appellant was entitled to a greater share of the estate.
The legal issues before the court involved interpreting the principles of adequate provision for support or advancement and determining whether the appellant's contributions and support to Mr Franks warranted a greater share of the estate. The court needed to consider the circumstances of the deceased, the relationship between the parties, and whether there were any promises or agreements made regarding the distribution of the estate. The court also had to examine the applicable statutory provisions and case law to determine the appropriate course of action.
The court held that the principles of adequate provision for support or advancement did not provide a basis for altering the distribution of the estate in this case. The court found that the appellant's contributions and support to Mr Franks, while significant, did not amount to a promise or agreement that warranted a greater share of the estate. The court emphasised that there were no new principles to be applied in this situation and that the existing legal framework did not support the appellant's claim. The court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the amount awarded to the appellant but not altering the overall distribution of the estate.
The final orders of the court were to allow the appeal in part, reducing the amount awarded to the appellant but not altering the overall distribution of the estate. The court found that the appellant's contributions and support to Mr Franks, while significant, did not warrant a greater share of the estate under the existing legal principles. The court emphasised that there were no new principles to be applied in this situation and that the existing legal framework did not support the appellant's claim.
The legal issues before the court involved interpreting the principles of adequate provision for support or advancement and determining whether the appellant's contributions and support to Mr Franks warranted a greater share of the estate. The court needed to consider the circumstances of the deceased, the relationship between the parties, and whether there were any promises or agreements made regarding the distribution of the estate. The court also had to examine the applicable statutory provisions and case law to determine the appropriate course of action.
The court held that the principles of adequate provision for support or advancement did not provide a basis for altering the distribution of the estate in this case. The court found that the appellant's contributions and support to Mr Franks, while significant, did not amount to a promise or agreement that warranted a greater share of the estate. The court emphasised that there were no new principles to be applied in this situation and that the existing legal framework did not support the appellant's claim. The court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the amount awarded to the appellant but not altering the overall distribution of the estate.
The final orders of the court were to allow the appeal in part, reducing the amount awarded to the appellant but not altering the overall distribution of the estate. The court found that the appellant's contributions and support to Mr Franks, while significant, did not warrant a greater share of the estate under the existing legal principles. The court emphasised that there were no new principles to be applied in this situation and that the existing legal framework did not support the appellant's claim.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed in part
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.