Madjeric v Madjeric - [2025] QDC 126

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Madjeric v Madjeric [2025] QDC 126

PARTIES:

ERIC ZDRAVKO MADJERIC
(applicant)

v

LUCIANO MADJERIC as Executor of the Will of BERNADINA SIMONA CIA, deceased
(respondent)

FILE NO:

3397/23

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Family Provision Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

4 September 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

29 January 2025, 30 January 2025 and 28 February 2025

JUDGE:

Sheridan DCJ

ORDERS:

1.   The application is granted.

2.   Provision is to be made for the proper maintenance and support of the applicant from the estate of Bernadina Simona Cia (deceased) in the sum of $250,000.

3.   The parties are to file draft orders by 11 September 2025.

4.   If the parties are unable to agree to the terms of the orders, they are to file and serve separate draft orders by 11 September 2025.

5.   The applicant is to file and serve submissions as to costs, of no more than 4 pages in length, by 4:00 pm 11 September 2025.

6.   The respondent is to file and serve submissions as to costs, of no more than 4 pages in length, by 4:00 pm 18 September 2025.

7.   The applicant is to file and serve submissions in reply, if any, of no more than 2 pages in length, by 4:00 pm 22 September 2025.

CATCHWORDS:

SUCCESSION – FAMILY PROVISION – REQUIREMENT FOR ADEQUATE AND PROPER MAINTENANCE – WHETHER APPLICANT LEFT WITH INSUFFICIENT PROVISION – CLAIMS BY CHILDREN – where the applicant applied pursuant to s 41 Succession Act 1981 (Qld) for proper maintenance and support out of the testator’s estate – where the testator made no provision for the applicant – where the testator made a statutory declaration – where the respondent opposes the application – whether the testator failed to make adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of applicant – whether the court ought to make an order giving provision out of the estate for the applicant

CASES

Camernick v Reholc [2012] NSWSC 1537
Coates v National Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd (1956) CLR 494
Hughes v National Trustees Executors and Agency Co of Australia Ltd (1979) 143 CLR 134
Palmer v Dolman [2005] NSWCA 361
Pontifical Society for the Progression of the Faith v Scales (1962) 107 CLR 9

Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201

LEGISLATION

Succession Act 1981 (Qld), s 41(1)

COUNSEL:

DR Wilson for the applicant
CA Brewer with PJ Coore for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Law and Commerce partners for the applicant
NR Barbi Solicitors for the respondent

This is an application by Eric Zdravko Madjeric (Eric), pursuant to s 41(1) Succession Act 1989 (Qld) (the Act), for adequate provision to be made for his proper maintenance and support out of the estate of his late mother, Bernadina Simona Cia (the testator).
The testator died on 11 February 2023 aged 96.
The testator left a will dated 19 January 2022, probate of which was granted to Luciano Madjeric (Lou), on 7 June 2023. Lou is…

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 Madjeric v Madjeric

Details

AGLC: Madjeric v Madjeric [2025] QDC 126
Case: [2025] QDC 126
Decision Date: 4 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Madjeric v Madjeric was heard by the Queensland Supreme Court, where the applicant, Madjeric, sought an order under section 41 of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld) for proper maintenance and support from the estate of Bernadina Simona Cia (deceased). Bernadina made no provision for the applicant in her will, prompting the application. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the deceased had made adequate provision for the applicant's maintenance and support.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the deceased failed to make adequate provision for the applicant's maintenance and support, and if so, whether the court should order provision out of the estate. The court considered the statutory criteria for adequate provision, including the applicant's financial resources, earning capacity, and any contributions made by the applicant to the deceased's estate. The court also evaluated the deceased's capacity to provide for the applicant and the provisions made for other family members. The court found that the deceased had not made adequate provision for the applicant, and therefore, an order for provision out of the estate was warranted.

The court granted the application and ordered that $250,000 be provided for the proper maintenance and support of the applicant from the estate. The parties were required to file draft orders by 11 September 2025. If they could not agree, separate draft orders were to be filed and served by the same date. The applicant and respondent were also required to file submissions regarding costs, with specific deadlines set for each party.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is granted.

2. Provision is to be made for the proper maintenance and support of the applicant from the estate of Bernadina Simona Cia (deceased) in the sum of $250,000.

3. The parties are to file draft orders by 11 September 2025.

4. If the parties are unable to agree to the terms of the orders, they are to file and serve separate draft orders by 11 September 2025.

5. The applicant is to file and serve submissions as to costs, of no more than 4 pages in length, by 4:00 pm 11 September 2025.

6. The respondent is to file and serve submissions as to costs, of no more than 4 pages in length, by 4:00 pm 18 September 2025.

7. The applicant is to file and serve submissions in reply, if any, of no more than 2 pages in length, by 4:00 pm 22 September 2025.

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.

CITATION:	Madjeric v Madjeric [2025] QDC 126
PARTIES:	ERIC ZDRAVKO MADJERIC (applicant) v LUCIANO MADJERIC as Executor of the Will of BERNADINA SIMONA CIA, deceased (respondent)
FILE NO:	3397/23
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Family Provision Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	4 September 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	29 January 2025, 30 January 2025 and 28 February 2025
JUDGE:	Sheridan DCJ
ORDERS:	1. The application is granted. 2. Provision is to be made for the proper maintenance and support of the applicant from the estate of Bernadina Simona Cia (deceased) in the sum of $250,000. 3. The parties are to file draft orders by 11 September 2025. 4. If the parties are unable to agree to the terms of the orders, they are to file and serve separate draft orders by 11 September 2025. 5. The applicant is to file and serve submissions as to costs, of no more than 4 pages in length, by 4:00 pm 11 September 2025. 6. The respondent is to file and serve submissions as to costs, of no more than 4 pages in length, by 4:00 pm 18 September 2025. 7. The applicant is to file and serve submissions in reply, if any, of no more than 2 pages in length, by 4:00 pm 22 September 2025.
CATCHWORDS:	SUCCESSION – FAMILY PROVISION – REQUIREMENT FOR ADEQUATE AND PROPER MAINTENANCE – WHETHER APPLICANT LEFT WITH INSUFFICIENT PROVISION – CLAIMS BY CHILDREN – where the applicant applied pursuant to s 41 Succession Act 1981 (Qld) for proper maintenance and support out of the testator’s estate – where the testator made no provision for the applicant – where the testator made a statutory declaration – where the respondent opposes the application – whether the testator failed to make adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of applicant – whether the court ought to make an order giving provision out of the estate for the applicant
CASES	Camernick v Reholc [2012] NSWSC 1537 Coates v National Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd (1956) CLR 494 Hughes v National Trustees Executors and Agency Co of Australia Ltd (1979) 143 CLR 134 Palmer v Dolman [2005] NSWCA 361 Pontifical Society for the Progression of the Faith v Scales (1962) 107 CLR 9 Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201
LEGISLATION	Succession Act 1981 (Qld), s 41(1)
COUNSEL:	DR Wilson for the applicant CA Brewer with PJ Coore for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Law and Commerce partners for the applicant NR Barbi Solicitors for the respondent