MEAD -v- LEMON [2015] WASC 71

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASC 71
Case No:	CIV:3076/2012	Heard:	2 - 5 FEBRUARY 2015
Coram:	MASTER SANDERSON	Delivered:	26/02/15
No of pages:	27	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Provision made for plaintiff
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	OLIVIA JACQUELINE MEAD DAVID JOHN NEALE LEMON as Executor of the Estate of MICHAEL JOHN MAYNARD WRIGHT LEONIE ANGELA MAYNARD BALDOCK ALEXANDRA ODETTE BURT VOC GROUP LTD
Catchwords:	Family Provision Act 1972 (WA) Large estate Claim by daughter of inadequate provision Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Family Provision Act 1972 (WA) Trustees Act 1962 (WA)
Case References:	Bondelmonte v Blanckensee [1989] WAR 305

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : MEAD -v- LEMON [2015] WASC 71 CORAM : MASTER SANDERSON HEARD : 2 - 5 FEBRUARY 2015 DELIVERED : 26 FEBRUARY 2015 FILE NO/S : CIV 3076 of 2012 BETWEEN : OLIVIA JACQUELINE MEAD

Plaintiff

AND

DAVID JOHN NEALE LEMON as Executor of the Estate of MICHAEL JOHN MAYNARD WRIGHT

First Defendant

LEONIE ANGELA MAYNARD BALDOCK

Second Defendant

ALEXANDRA ODETTE BURT

Third Defendant

VOC GROUP LTD

Fourth Defendant

Catchwords:

Family Provision Act 1972 (WA) - Large estate - Claim by daughter of inadequate provision - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Family Provision Act 1972 (WA)

Trustees Act 1962 (WA)

Result:

Provision made for plaintiff

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr L Ellison SC & Mr C V Eastwood

First Defendant : Ms J Needham SC & Ms A A Gomez

Second Defendant : Ms J Needham SC & Ms A A Gomez

Third Defendant : Ms J Needham SC & Ms A A Gomez

Fourth Defendant : Ms J Needham SC & Ms A A Gomez

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Eastwood Sweeney Law

First Defendant : Clifford Chance

Second Defendant : Clifford Chance

Third Defendant : Clifford Chance

Fourth Defendant : Clifford Chance

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bondelmonte v Blanckensee [1989] WAR 305

MASTER SANDERSON

Introduction

1 The plaintiff is the daughter of the late Michael John Maynard Wright (the deceased). The deceased died on 26 April 2012 aged 74. He was survived by his wife Mary whom he married on 2 May 1997. He was survived by three adult children born of his earlier marriage to Jennifer Turner. The second defendant was born on 28 August 1971. The third defendant was born on 18 December 1973. The deceased's son Myles who is not a party to these proceedings is the other adult child. The deceased's three earlier wives (from whom he had been divorced) survived him. The plaintiff was born on 3 September 1995 from a relationship with Elizabeth Anne Mead.

2 The deceased made many wills during his lifetime with those many wills being altered by even more numerous codicils. The deceased made his last will on 6 March 2012 and that will was altered by codicil on 11 March 2012. On 10 July 2012 probate was granted in this court to…

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 Mead v Lemon

Details

AGLC: Mead v Lemon [2015] WASC 71
Case: [2015] WASC 71
Decision Date: 26 FEBRUARY 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mead v Lemon involved a daughter challenging the adequacy of the provisions made for her in her father's will. The daughter, the plaintiff, argued that the provisions made for her were inadequate under the Family Provision Act 1972 (WA). The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the daughter had established that the provisions made for her in the will were inadequate and whether she had proven that she had been unreasonably disregarded by the deceased in the making of the will. The court had to determine if the daughter had shown that the deceased had failed to make reasonable financial provision for her maintenance, education or advancement in life.

The court found that the daughter had made out a case for inadequate provision. The court was satisfied that the deceased had failed to make reasonable financial provision for the plaintiff's maintenance, education, and advancement in life. The court noted that the deceased had made significant provisions to others, including the plaintiff's stepmother, but had made only modest provisions for the plaintiff. The court held that the deceased's failure to make reasonable financial provision for the plaintiff's needs was unreasonable. The court made an order that the plaintiff was to receive a specific sum from the estate of the deceased.

Orders

Orders of the court

Provision made for plaintiff

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.