McGeough v Ian Torrington Blatchford as Administrator of the Estate of Margaret Mary McGeough

The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, affirming the decision of Smith J that the disposition of the Deceased's estate did not make adequate provision for Rory McGeough's proper maintenance, support or advancement in life. The appeal raised two grounds, both of which were rejected. Ground 1 alleged that the primary judge erred in finding that Rory McGeough had satisfied the jurisdictional question under the Family Provision Act 1972 (WA) because he did not provide evidence of his financial circumstances as at the date of the Deceased's death. The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge was entitled to accept Rory McGeough's oral evidence about his financial position as at the date of the Deceased's death, even though it was not supported by documentary evidence. Ground 2 alleged that the primary judge erred in finding that Rory McGeough was not capable of work. The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge did not find that Rory McGeough was not capable of work, but rather that he was unlikely to gain employment now or in the future. The Court of Appeal concluded that this finding was not against the weight of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal held that the primary judge correctly identified and applied the applicable legal principles. The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge made comprehensive findings of fact in relation to Rory McGeough's financial position having regard to the whole of the evidence before her. The Court of Appeal found that Rory McGeough's evidence about his financial circumstances was credible and that his financial circumstances were dire. The Court of Appeal also found that the primary judge was entitled to conclude that the Will did not make adequate provision for Rory McGeough's proper maintenance, support or advancement in life within s 6(1) of the Act, as at the date of the Deceased's death, having regard to her Honour's findings as to the relevant facts and circumstances that existed at the date of death (whether the Deceased knew of them or not) and all material eventualities that might at that date reasonably have been foreseen by a deceased who knew the facts. The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge did not find that there was any inconsistency in Rory McGeough's evidence about his capacity for work or the type of work that he can now carry out. The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge was entitled to find that Rory McGeough was unlikely to gain employment now or in the future. The Court of Appeal concluded that the appeal should be dismissed.