Legal Research
Cases
Mills v Piller

Mills v Piller

Case [2017] WASC 45 23 February 2017

Res Judicata

Family Provision Act 1972 (WA)

Claim by adult daughter

Further provision

Turns on own facts

Succession Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: MILLS -v- PILLER [2017] WASC 45

CORAM: ACTING MASTER STRK

HEARD: 16 NOVEMBER 2016

DELIVERED : 23 FEBRUARY 2017

FILE NO/S: CIV 2696 of 2015

BETWEEN: KAYE MILLS
Plaintiff
AND
HELEN PILLER as Executor of the Estate of LUBA CHRISTOU
First Defendant
MENKA COLLINS as Executor of the Estate of LUBA CHRISTOU
Second Defendant
JOHN CHRISTOU as Beneficiary of the Estate of LUBA CHRISTOU
Third Defendant
MENKA COLLINS as Beneficiary of the Estate of LUBA CHRISTOU
Fourth Defendant
HELEN PILLER as Beneficiary of the Estate of LUBA CHRISTOU
Fifth Defendant
JAMES CHRISTOU as Beneficiary of the Estate of LUBA CHRISTOU
Sixth Defendant

Catchwords:

Family Provision Act 1972 (WA) - Claim by adult daughter - Whether further provision ought to be made - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Family Provision Act 1972 (WA)
Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1967 (WA)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Ms W F Gillan
First Defendant             :     Mr M Curwood
Second Defendant         :     Mr M Curwood
Third Defendant           :     In person
Fourth Defendant          :     Mr M Curwood
Fifth Defendant            :     Mr M Curwood
Sixth Defendant            :     In person

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Armstrong Legal
First Defendant             :     Kitto & Kitto
Second Defendant         :     Kitto & Kitto
Third Defendant           :     In person
Fourth Defendant          :     Kitto & Kitto
Fifth Defendant            :     Kitto & Kitto
Sixth Defendant            :     In person

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

Baxter v Baxter [2014] VSC 377
Blore v Lang (1960) 104 CLR 124
Braun v Australian Executor Trustees Ltd [2014] WASC 210
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Butcher v Craig [2010] WASCA 92
Chappell v Hewson [2013] WASCA 15
Devereaux‑Warnes v Hall [No 3] [2007] WASCA 235; (2007) 35 WAR 127
Goodman v Windeyer (1980) 144 CLR 490
Grey v Harrison [1997] 2 VR 359
Kennedy v Kennedy [2016] WASC 210
Kitson v Franks [2001] WASCA 134
Maas v O'Neil [2013] WASC 379
Pontifical Society for the Propagation of Faith v Scales (1962) 107 CLR 9
Salmon v Osmond [2015] NSWCA 42
Singer v Berghouse (No 2) [1994] HCA 40; (1994) 181 CLR 201
Taylor v Farrugia [2009] NSWSC 801
Wheat v Wisbey [2013] NSWSC 537

ACTING MASTER STRK: By an amended originating summons, the plaintiff (Ms Kaye Mills) seeks an order under s 6 of the Family Provision Act 1972 (WA) (Family Provision Act) that adequate provision be made out of the estate of the late Luba Christou for her proper maintenance, support, education and advancement in life.

Background

Ms Luba Christou, late of 114 Vincent Street, North Perth (the deceased) died on 3 April 2015 aged 83. The deceased was survived by her five adult children. They are the plaintiff (Ms Mills), the first and fifth defendant (Ms Helen Piller), the second and fourth defendant (Ms Menka Collins), the third defendant (Mr John Christou), and the sixth defendant (Mr James Christou).
The deceased made her will on 24 January 2003. Probate of that will was…

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 Mills v Piller

Details

AGLC: Mills v Piller [2017] WASC 45
Case: [2017] WASC 45
Decision Date: 23 FEBRUARY 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mills v Piller involved a dispute under the Family Provision Act 1972 (WA). The appellant, Mills, the daughter of the deceased, sought to claim additional provision from her father's estate. Mills argued that the testamentary disposition made by her father did not adequately provide for her needs and circumstances. The respondent, Piller, opposed the claim on the basis that the will had been properly executed and reflected the father's intentions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the provisions made in the deceased's will were sufficient and whether the court should exercise its discretion to make further provision under the Act. The court needed to consider the relevant statutory criteria, including the nature of the relationship between the applicant and the deceased, the extent to which the applicant was financially dependent on the deceased, and whether the deceased's estate was of a value that warranted further provision. The court also had to weigh the deceased's intentions as expressed in the will against the applicant's need for additional support.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously reviewed the deceased's testamentary intentions and the financial circumstances of both the deceased and the applicant. It was found that the deceased had made a substantial provision for the applicant, taking into account the family's overall financial situation. The court concluded that the deceased's will had reflected his wishes and that the provisions made were adequate. Given the statutory criteria and the evidence presented, the court determined that there was no need for further provision to be made from the estate.

The court's final orders dismissed the applicant's claim, confirming that the provisions made in the deceased's will were sufficient and that no further provision was required. The decision underscored the importance of considering both the statutory criteria and the deceased's intentions in such matters.

Orders