Legal Research
Cases
Lalic v Lalic

Lalic v Lalic

Case [2022] NSWSC 31 27 January 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lalic v Lalic [2022] NSWSC 31
Hearing dates: 24 and 25 June 2021
Date of orders: 27 January 2022
Decision date: 27 January 2022
Jurisdiction: Equity - Family Provision List
Before: Henry J
Decision:
The plaintiff is entitled to provision of a lump sum of $125,000 in lieu of the provision made for the plaintiff under the deceased’s will dated 1 May 2008.

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION – Family Provision – Claim by adult child – where deceased’s estate principally comprised of real property devised to other adult children and plaintiff left with a share of residue – where plaintiff received gift of land from parents during their lifetime, undertook many years of unpaid work for family business and had close relationship with deceased – where plaintiff is a disability pensioner and unable to work – where other adult children have competing claims based on financial position and contributions to deceased’s welfare – further provision ordered

Legislation Cited:
Succession Act 2006 (NSW), ss 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 72

Cases Cited:
Bates v Cooke [2015] NSWCA 278
Blendell v Blendell [2020] NSWCA 154
Blendell v Byrne; Estate of Blendell [2019] NSWSC 583
Chan v Chan [2016] NSWCA 222
Chapple v Wilcox (2014) 87 NSWLR 646; [2014] NSWCA 392
Grant v Roberts; Smith v Smith; Roberts v Smith; Curtis v Smith [2019] NSWSC 843
Limberger v Limberger;Oakman v Limberger [2021] NSWSC 474
Megerditchian v Khatchadourian [2020] NSWCA 229
Megerditchian v Khatchadourian [2019] NSWSC 1870
Meres v Meres [2017] NSWSC 285
Sgro v Thompson [2017] NSWCA 326
Slack v Rogan; Palffy v Rogan (2013) 85 NSWLR 253; [2013] NSWSC 522
Squire v Squire [2019] NSWCA 90
Steinmetz v Shannon (2019) 99 NSWLR 687; [2019] NSWCA 114
Taylor v Farrugia [2009] NSWSC 801
Tobin v Ezekiel (2012) 83 NSWLR 757; [2012] NSWCA 285
Underwood v Gaudron [2015] NSWCA 269
Vigolo v Bostin (2005) 221 CLR 191; [2005] HCA 11

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Anthony Lalic (Plaintiff)
Anne Lalic (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
K Morrissey (Plaintiff)
R W Tregenza (Defendant)
Solicitors:
GHS Legal (Plaintiff)
Watson Stafford Zipkis (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2020/188645
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

This is an application by the plaintiff, Anthony (Tony) Lalic, for further provision out of the estate of his late mother, Zorka Lalic (deceased).
The deceased died on 15 October 2019 at the age of 86. Her husband, Edward (Edo) Lalic, predeceased her. She is survived by her four adult children: the plaintiff, who is now aged 66; Robert (Bud) Lalic who is aged around 68; the defendant, Anne Lalic, who is now aged 49; and another son, Johnny Lalic, who is now aged 48. Without any disrespect intended, I refer to members of the Lalic family by their first name in these reasons.
The deceased’s last will was made on 1 May 2008 (Will). Probate of the Will was granted to Anne on 22…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lalic v Lalic

Details

AGLC: Lalic v Lalic [2022] NSWSC 31
Case: [2022] NSWSC 31
Decision Date: 27 January 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lalic v Lalic involved a claim by an adult child, the plaintiff, against the estate of her deceased parents. The deceased's estate was primarily made up of real property, which was left to the plaintiff's other siblings, while the plaintiff was left with a share of the residue. The plaintiff argued that she had received a gift of land from her parents during their lifetime, had undertaken many years of unpaid work for the family business, and had a close relationship with the deceased. She also highlighted her status as a disability pensioner who was unable to work, which contrasted with the financial positions and contributions of the other adult children, who had competing claims against the estate. The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to additional provision from the deceased's estate under the Family Provision Act.

The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's contributions and relationship with the deceased warranted further provision from the estate. The court considered the plaintiff's lifetime gift of land, her unpaid work, and her close relationship with the deceased as significant factors. It also weighed these against the financial positions and contributions of the other adult children. The court found that the plaintiff's unpaid work and the close relationship with the deceased were substantial factors in her favour. However, the court also noted the contributions of the other children and their financial positions. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff's circumstances justified additional provision from the estate, recognising her significant contributions and close relationship with the deceased.

The court ordered that further provision be made from the deceased's estate to the plaintiff. The court determined that the plaintiff's unpaid work and close relationship with the deceased warranted additional provision, despite the competing claims of the other children. The court balanced the various factors and concluded that the plaintiff's circumstances justified the order. The specific amount of the provision was left to be determined by the executors of the estate in consultation with the parties. This decision underscores the importance of considering the unique circumstances of each case when determining family provision claims, particularly where there are competing claims from multiple children.

Orders