Mulcahy v Weldon

Case [2002] NSWCA 206


CITATION: Mulcahy v. Weldon [2002] NSWCA 206
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40525/01
HEARING DATE(S): 27 June 2002
JUDGMENT DATE:
27 June 2002

PARTIES :


Patricia Elizabeth Mulcahy - appellant
Paul John Weldon (as trustee of the Estate of the late John Robert Mulcahy) - respondent
JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 27, 29; Hodgson JA at 1; Campbell AJA at 28
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court - Equity Division
LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :
SC4732/99
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Bryson J
COUNSEL: Mrs. L. Robinson for appellant
Mr. C. Bevan for respondent
SOLICITORS: G.H. Healey & Co., Bondi for appellant
Turner Freeman, Sydney for respondent
CATCHWORDS: SUCCESSION - FAMILY PROVISION - Application by former wife of deceased - Dismissed by primary judge - No error shown.
LEGISLATION CITED: Family Provision Act 1982, s.9
CASES CITED:
Dijkhuijs v. Barclay (1988) 13 NSWLR 639
DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs.




                          CA 40525/01
                          SC 4732/99

                          HANDLEY JA
                          HODGSON JA
                          CAMPBELL AJA

                          Thursday 27 June 2002
MULCAHY V. WELDON
Judgment

1 HODGSON JA: On 12 June, 2001 Bryson J in the Equity Division made an order dismissing proceedings brought by the appellant, Patricia Elizabeth Mulcahy, under the Family Provision Act against the respondent, Paul John Weldon, the executor of the will of the late John Robert Mulcahy.

2 On 22 June, 2001 the primary judge ordered to the effect that the appellant pay her own costs of the proceedings and that the costs of the respondent come out of the estate.

3 The appellant appeals to this Court from the order made on 12 June, 2001.

4 I will begin with a brief outline of the circumstances.

5 The deceased died at a date which cannot be exactly established between 19 April, 1998 andV20 May, 1998 aged sixty-seven. On 16 October, 1998 probate was granted to the respondent of the deceased’s last will made on 31 July, 1992. By the provisions of that will which took effect the deceased appointed the respondent executor and gave the whole of his property to the respondent and his sister, Susan Weldon, in equal shares.

6 The appellant is the former wife of the deceased. She was born on 26 August, 1932. She married one William Moffat in 1953. Mr Moffat died in 1965 and the appellant has three adult children of that marriage. The appellant married the deceased on 9 January, 1971 and their marriage was dissolved by a decree of the Family Court of Australia in about 1989. The appellant attributes her separation from the deceased, which took place in about 1988, to his alcoholism and his extreme violence towards her.

7 In the Family Court of Australia, application was made by one or both parties for a property settlement, and this application was disposed of by orders made on 21 March, 1990. Those orders were as follows:-

          UPON APPLICATION made to the Court this day AND UPON HEARING the legal representations of both parties
          IT IS ORDERED
          1. That by consent orders be made in terms…

Continue reading Mulcahy v Weldon

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Mulcahy v Weldon [2002] NSWCA 206
Case
[2002] NSWCA 206
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mulcahy v Weldon concerned an application for family provision made by the former wife of the deceased. The primary judge had dismissed her application, and she appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had erred in dismissing the former wife's application for provision from the deceased's estate. This required the Court to consider the relevant provisions of the *Family Provision Act 1982* (NSW) and the principles governing applications for family provision, particularly in the context of a former spouse.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Handley and Hodgson JJA and Campbell AJA, found no error in the primary judge's decision. The Court applied the established legal principles for family provision claims, which require an applicant to demonstrate that adequate provision for their maintenance, education, and advancement in life has not been made from the deceased's estate. In this instance, the Court was satisfied that the primary judge had correctly assessed the circumstances and had not made any errors in law or fact.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

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.