Garry John Lewis - plaintiff Mary Christine Lewis - 1st defendant Belinda Jane Lewis - 2nd defendant Beverley Lynette Feehan - 3rd defendant
JUDGMENT OF:
Hodgson J at 1
COUNSEL :
Mr. R. Brender with Mr. A. Blank for plaintiff Mr. G. Lindsay SC with Mr. I. Davidson and Mr. M. Cleary for defendants
SOLICITORS:
Colquhoun Murphy, Braddon, ACT for plaitniff Elrington Boardman Allport, Queanbeyan for defendants
CATCHWORDS:
ESTOPPEL - Constructive trust - Representations as to property to be left by will - Reliance - Action to detriment - Whether non-fulfilment unconscionable, where in last 20 years of life the deceased incurs substantial additional moral obligations. - SUCCESSION - Family provision - Late application - Estate distributed - Whether 'sufficient cause' within s.16 of Family Provision Act - Whether 'special circumstances' within s.28 of the Act.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION
CORAM: HODGSON, J.
Tuesday 1st May 2001
NO. 1854 OF 1999 LEWIS V. LEWIS & ORS.
JUDGMENT
1 The plaintiff is the son of Ken Lewis, who died on 1st September 1996. The deceased’s estate comprised mainly land in the Braidwood district, worth about $1.1 million. By his last will dated 23rd August 1995, the deceased left land to the value of about $650,000.00 to his second wife Christine (the first defendant in these proceedings), land to the value of about $240,000.00 to the plaintiff, land to the value of about $101,000.00 to the daughter of his first marriage Beverley (the third defendant in these proceedings), land to the value of $95,000.00 to the only child of his second marriage Belinda (the second defendant in these proceedings), land to the value of $12,000.00 to his sister Lola Stinson, and land to the value of $10,000.00 to another sister.
2 In these proceedings, the plaintiff claims the benefit of a constructive trust entitling him to all of this land, apart from the last two parcels. In the alternative, the plaintiff claims provision under the Family Provision Act. The defendants have put on a cross-claim seeking orders for removal of caveats lodged by the plaintiff over their land, an enquiry as to damages, and, in the event that the plaintiff should obtain relief on the basis of a constructive trust, orders under the Family Provision Act.
OUTLINE OF FACTS
3 Some of the subject land had been owned by the deceased’s parents, and for a time they had lived in a house on that land called Rugby House. It appears that they moved from that house in about 1930, and as I understand it went to live…
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 Lewis v Lewis
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Lewis v Lewis [2001] NSWSC 321
Case
[2001] NSWSC 321
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of Lewis v Lewis was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the applicant sought to challenge the distribution of the deceased's estate. The applicant, who was the deceased's former spouse, alleged that the deceased had made representations that certain properties would be left to her in his will. These representations were made during their marriage and were relied upon by the applicant to her detriment. The applicant argued that the non-fulfilment of these promises was unconscionable and that the deceased's actions in incurring substantial additional moral obligations in the last 20 years of his life warranted equitable intervention.
The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant could establish the elements of promissory estoppel, specifically whether there were clear and unequivocal representations, reliance, action to her detriment, and unconscionability. Additionally, the court had to determine if the applicant's application for family provision was made within a reasonable time and whether there were sufficient cause and special circumstances under the Family Provision Act to justify ordering a variation of the estate distribution.
The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated clear and unequivocal representations regarding the disposition of the properties in the deceased's will. While there were discussions about the properties, these were not sufficiently definite to constitute binding promises. The court also found that the applicant had not acted to her detriment in a manner that could give rise to promissory estoppel. Furthermore, the court determined that the applicant's late application for family provision did not meet the threshold for sufficient cause under the Act. The court concluded that the applicant had failed to establish a case for equitable relief or for a variation of the estate distribution under the Family Provision Act.
The court dismissed the application, and the estate distribution as per the deceased's will was upheld. The applicant was not entitled to any further provision from the estate.