McCann v McCann - [2011] NSWSC 1544

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: McCann v McCann [2011] NSWSC 1544
Hearing dates: Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Decision date: 16 November 2011
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: White J
Decision:
Counsel to bring in short minutes of order in accordance with these reasons.

Catchwords: SUCCESSION - probate - caveat - where deceased died intestate - serious question to be tried as to parentage of next of kin - triable issue as to whether a document expressing testamentary intentions should be admitted as an informal will - application for order that caveat cease to remain in force refused - Status of Children Act 1996, s 26 - parentage testing procedure to be carried out to assist in determination of parentage of child
Legislation Cited: Succession Act 2006
Status of Children Act 1996
Cases Cited: Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB & SMB (Marion's case) [1992] HCA 15; (1992) 175 CLR 218
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Ranita McCann (Plaintiff in 2010 proceedings; 1st Defendant in 2011 proceedings)
Janet McCann (Defendant in 2010 proceedings; Plaintiff in 2011 proceedings)
David Griffith (2nd Defendant in 2011 proceedings)
Representation: Plaintiff - J Heazlewood
Defendant - P Nagle
David Griffiths Lawyers (Ranita McCann)
N/a (Janet McCann)

File Number(s): 2010/390283; 2011/344986

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: These proceedings concern the estate of Michael Robert McCann who died between 18 and 21 August 2010. Applications in the two proceedings have been heard together.

In proceeding 2010/390283 Ranita McCann seeks a grant of letters of administration of the deceased's estate to her. She contends that she is the deceased's daughter and entitled to his estate on intestacy.

The plaintiff in proceeding 2011/344986 is the deceased's sister, Janet McCann. She seeks an order that she be appointed as administrator of the deceased's estate, or in the alternative declarations that the deceased left a formal will by which he left his estate to her and his brothers in equal shares.

On 3 December 2010 Janet McCann filed a caveat demanding that no grant or reseal be made in the estate without notice to her. The interest she claimed in the caveat was as sister of the deceased. She also contended that:

" ...

2. I have at least a $20,000 bequeathed interest plus other possessions and documents improperly removed from the deceased's house without proper legal authority or informing Michael's family by the present application to become Administrator of the Estate.

3. I have reason to believe that my late brother Michael's Will's [sic] computer, other documents and monies have been improperly removed from his home ...

...

5. I have reason to believe that the 'next of kin' or present applicant to become administrator of the estate is not the actual only 'next of kin' [sic]."

A further caveat was lodged on 2 June 2011 which had an additional paragraph to the effect that it is alleged that Ranita McCann has knowingly understated the value of the estate.

The first of the applications before me today 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read McCann v McCann and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] NSWSC 1544
Decision Date: 16 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

McCann v McCann was a legal dispute heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The case involved a dispute over the estate of a deceased person who had died without a valid will, known as intestate. The primary issue was the identification of the next of kin, specifically the parentage of a child who was potentially a beneficiary under the intestacy rules. A caveat had been lodged against the grant of probate by a party claiming to be a child of the deceased. The court was required to determine whether there was a serious question to be tried regarding the child's parentage and whether a document expressing the deceased's testamentary intentions could be admitted as an informal will.

The court addressed several legal issues, including whether the caveator had established a serious question to be tried regarding the parentage of the child. The court also considered whether there was sufficient evidence to admit a document as an informal will. The primary focus was on the application of the Status of Children Act 1996 and the procedure for parentage testing to assist in determining the parentage of the child in question. The court needed to weigh the evidence presented and determine if the caveat should remain in force pending the outcome of the parentage testing.

The court found that the caveator had not established a serious question to be tried regarding the child's parentage. Consequently, the application for an order that the caveat cease to remain in force was refused. The court ordered that parentage testing be conducted under the Status of Children Act 1996 to assist in determining the parentage of the child. The decision underscored the importance of clear evidence in establishing family relationships and the procedural steps required to address disputes over parentage in succession matters.

Orders