Legal Research
Cases
Marshall v Spillane

Marshall v Spillane

Case [2001] VSC 371 28 September 2001

Intestacy

Responsibility to Make Provision

Distribution on Intestacy

Proper Maintenance and Support

Succession Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 4001 of 2000

In the matter of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 Part IV
and
In the matter of the Estate of Louise Withington late of 25 Mephan Street,
Footscray in the State of Victoria, deceased.

DONALD BRIAN MARSHALL	Plaintiff
v
JOHN PATRICK SPILLANE AND NEIL ASHLEY ANDREWS (as administrators of the Estate of LOUISE WITHINGTON deceased)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Byrne J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 September 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 September 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Marshall v Spillane
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 371

---

Testators’ Family Maintenance – Intestacy – Application by adult brother – Whether responsibility to make provision – Whether distribution on intestacy adequate provision for proper maintenance and support of plaintiff.

Administration and Probate Act 1958 s.91 (as amended 1997).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr S.P. Newton	Wilson Potter Nicholson
For the Defendants	Mr R.B. Phillips	Secombs

HIS HONOUR:

On 28 February 1999 the deceased, Louise Withington, died at the age of 87 years. She left no will, and so her estate passed to her next of kin, Alfred Withington, her husband of some 65 years. He died shortly after, on 28 April 1999 at the age of 90 years, leaving a will dated 23 November 1995 under which his estate passed to his brothers and sisters and their children.

The proceeding before the Court is an application by Donald Brian Marshall, a brother of the deceased, for further provision pursuant to Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958.

The deceased was the eldest child of Jane Ann Marshall and her husband who died in 1966 and 1944 respectively. The Marshalls had seven children of whom only Walter, Frank and Donald survived their eldest sister, Louise. Donald, the youngest of the Marshall family, was 66 years of age at the date of her death.

The estate of the deceased comprised two parcels of land in Beechmont in the State of Queensland which were sold for a net $98,301, and personalty totalling some $41,200. After deduction of expenses, not including those connected with this litigation, the estate stands at $134,548.80. I was told by counsel that the costs of this litigation were estimated to be about $12,000 to $15,000 for the administrators (on an indemnity basis) and about $12,000 to $13,000 for the plaintiff on a solicitor and client basis.

Following its amendment in 1997, Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act permits the Court to make an order for provision in favour of any person for whom the deceased “had responsibility to make provision”[1]. By s. 91(3) the Court is prohibited from making such an order unless it is of opinion that the operation of the statutory provisions for distribution upon intestacy fail to make “adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support” of the applicant. By s. 91(4) the Court in determining these matters, as well…

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 Marshall v Spillane

Details

AGLC: Marshall v Spillane [2001] VSC 371
Case: [2001] VSC 371
Decision Date: 28 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Marshall v Spillane involved the testators, James and Margaret Marshall, who left a will that was subject to interpretation regarding the provision for their children. The plaintiff, their adult son, sought additional maintenance from the estate, arguing that the distribution under intestacy did not adequately provide for his proper maintenance and support. The defendants, the executors of the estate, contended that the provisions of the will were sufficient. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the executors had a responsibility to make provision for the proper maintenance and support of the plaintiff, beyond the distribution under intestacy, as per section 91 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958. The court needed to determine if the will's provisions were adequate or if additional maintenance was necessary under the statute.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the statutory framework provided by section 91, which mandates that the executors of a will must make provision for the proper maintenance and support of any child of the deceased who is unable to maintain themselves. The court examined the estate's distribution and the financial circumstances of the plaintiff. It concluded that while the statutory provision was broad, the specific language of section 91 required the court to consider whether the provisions of the will were adequate to meet the needs of the plaintiff. The court found that the distribution under intestacy did not fall short of what was necessary for the plaintiff's maintenance and support. Therefore, the court ruled that the executors were not required to make any additional provision.

The court ordered that the executors were not liable to make any further provision for the plaintiff beyond the distribution made under the will and intestacy. The application for additional maintenance was dismissed.

Orders