Neale v Neale

Case [2015] NSWCA 206


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Neale v Neale [2015] NSWCA 206
Hearing dates:11 June 2015
Decision date: 17 July 2015
Before: Basten JA at [1];
Macfarlan JA at [41];
Gleeson JA at [42]
Decision:

(1)   Dismiss the appeal.

 (2)   Order that the appellant pay the respondents’ costs in this court.
Catchwords:

SUCCESSION – family provision – application by adult children of earlier marriage – deceased left entirety of his estate to his widow – no provision made for his children from first marriage – previously the children forwent part of their grandmother’s estate in favour of deceased – deceased promised to make provision for them – whether court entitled to take into account the children’s expectation resulting from the representation – whether foregoing part of the grandmother’s estate a discharge of moral obligation to deceased and thus a reason not to make – Succession Act 2006 (NSW), s 60(2)(a) and (b)

  SUCCESSION – family provision – adult children with demonstrated financial needs – widow with competing claims to the estate – whether trial judge properly balanced competing claims – whether judge erred in his discretion finding the widow was financially “relatively secure”
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 60, 98
Succession Act 2006 (NSW), ss 58, 60; Pt 3.2
Cases Cited: Luciano v Rosenblum (1985) 2 NSWLR 65
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Sandra Cheryl Neale (Appellant)
Craig Russell Neale (First Respondent)
Michelle-Maree Best (Second Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
L Ellison SC/A M Hawkins (Appellant)
S A Wells (Respondents)

  Solicitors:
Miller Noyce (Appellant
Caldwell & O’Brien (Respondents)
File Number(s):2014/240357
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court
Citation:
Neale v Neale [2014] NSWSC 965
Date of Decision:
16 July 2014
Before:
Lindsay J
File Number(s):
2012/364929

Judgment

  1. BASTEN JA: The deceased, John Anthony Neale, died on 25 November 2011, leaving the whole of his estate to his widow, Sandra Cheryl Neale. The inventory of property annexed to the application for probate estimated the value of the estate at $1.7 million. After the land and business half owned by the deceased and half owned by his widow, the appellant, had been sold, the net value was a figure between $1.21 million and $1.45 million.

  2. The deceased had three children by an earlier marriage. Two of the three children sought provision from the estate under Part 3.2 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). [1] The claimants commenced proceedings in the Equity Division by summons filed on 23 November 2012. Those proceedings were determined by a judgment of Lindsay J delivered on 16 July 2014. [2] The Court awarded legacies to be paid from the notional estate of the deceased (his assets having been disposed of, although with notice of the claims) in an amount of $100,000 for each claimant. His widow challenged those orders. In addition to seeking to have the legacies set aside, she also sought orders that the respondents pay her costs of the appeal and in the court below.…

Continue reading Neale v Neale

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Neale v Neale [2015] NSWCA 206
Case
[2015] NSWCA 206
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Neale v Neale* concerned an application for family provision by the adult children of the deceased from his first marriage. The deceased had left his entire estate to his widow, making no provision for these children. The children argued that they had previously forgone a portion of their grandmother's estate in favour of the deceased, based on his promise to make provision for them. The appeal court was therefore required to consider whether the children's expectation arising from this representation was a relevant factor, and whether their foregoing of the grandmother's estate constituted a discharge of any moral obligation owed to the deceased, thereby negating a reason to make provision.

The court was also tasked with determining whether the trial judge had properly balanced the competing claims of the adult children, who had demonstrated financial needs, against the claims of the widow. Specifically, the appeal court examined whether the trial judge had erred in exercising his discretion by finding the widow to be financially "relatively secure."

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's decision. The judges reasoned that the deceased's promise to make provision for his children, coupled with their foregoing of their inheritance from their grandmother, created a moral obligation on the deceased to provide for them. The court found that the trial judge had correctly considered these factors and had not erred in his assessment of the widow's financial security. The appeal court affirmed the principle that the court's discretion in family provision matters must be exercised having regard to all relevant circumstances, including the applicant's needs and the deceased's moral obligations. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Dismiss the appeal.

(2) Order that the appellant pay the respondents’ costs in this court.

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.