Niebour-Pott & Anor v Pott

Case [2020] QSC 7


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Niebour-Pott & Anor v Pott [2020] QSC 7

PARTIES:

CAMERON DAVID NIEBOUR-POTT (by his litigation guardian JENNIFER MARGARET NIEBOUR-POTT) and
NAOMI AMBER ALICE NIEBOUR-POTT

(applicants)

v
CECILIA KIT-YING POTT (as executor of the will of BRYAN FREDERICK NIEBOUR POTT)

(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS No 2789 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 February 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 and 23 October 2019

JUDGE:

Ryan J

ORDERS:

Naomi Amber Alice Niebour Pott is to be included as an applicant in the application made by Cameron David Niebour-Pott (by his litigation guardian), file number S2789/2009.

I indicate that I consider provision in the sum of $400,000 ought to be made for each of the applicants out of the estate of Bryan Frederick Niebour Pott.

I will hear the parties as to the form of order and as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

SUCCESSION – FAMILY PROVISION – REQUIREMENT FOR ADEQUATE AND PROPER MAINTENANCE – WHETHER APPLICANTS LEFT WITH INSUFFICIENT PROVISION – CLAIMS BY CHILDREN – where the applicants are the children of the deceased – where the applicants have been diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome – where the deceased did not provide for the applicants in his will – whether a wise and just testator, in the deceased’s position, would have made some provision for the applicants in his will – where a wise and just testator would have taken into account that his estate was not small; they were his children; he controlled his relationship with them and the contact they had with him; they were unlikely to find employment; their life was likely to be difficult because of their disability; their mother’s finances were limited; and there was no suggestion of any other needs based claim upon the estate – where having regard to the size of the estate, the community would not expect the deceased to leave the most vulnerable of his children dependent on welfare whilst providing for his other children who were able to meet their needs from their own resources – where the deceased failed to make adequate provision for the applicants’ proper maintenance and support in his will

SUCCESSION – FAMILY PROVISION – PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE SUBJECT TO ORDER – PRIMACY OF WIDOW’S CLAIM – EXONERATION OF MATRIMONIAL HOME – where the respondent is the widow of the deceased – whether the conduct of the respondent as executor, and any pursuit by her of litigation to the detriment of the estate, can be taken into account in deciding whether to exonerate the matrimonial home – where no evidence given of the widow’s particular attachment to the home, or her inability to find or fund a suitable replacement for it were it not exonerated – where it is not appropriate to apply the broad general rule that primacy be accorded to widows

Succession Act 1981 (Qld)

Abrahams (by his litigation guardian the Public Trustee (Qld)) v Abrahams (2015) 13…

Continue reading Niebour-Pott & Anor v Pott

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Niebour-Pott & Anor v Pott [2020] QSC 7
Case
[2020] QSC 7
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Niebour-Pott & Anor v Pott involved the children of the deceased, who sought an order for adequate and proper maintenance under the Family Provision Act. Naomi Amber Alice Niebour Pott and Cameron David Niebour-Pott, the children of the deceased Bryan Frederick Niebour Pott, argued that they had not been provided for adequately in their father's will. The deceased had passed away without making any provision for the applicants in his will, who had both been diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome. The applicants contended that a wise and just testator, considering their disability and the size of the estate, would have made some provision for them.

The court was required to determine whether the deceased had failed to make adequate provision for the applicants' proper maintenance and support in his will, and if so, what amount of provision should be made. The court considered factors such as the size of the estate, the applicants' disabilities, and their likelihood of finding employment. The court also examined the widow's claim to the matrimonial home and whether it should be exonerated. Ultimately, the court found that the deceased had failed to make adequate provision for the applicants and ordered that $400,000 should be made for each of the applicants out of the estate of the deceased.

The court's decision was based on the evidence presented regarding the applicants' disabilities, the size of the estate, and the lack of any other needs-based claims on the estate. The court emphasised that a wise and just testator, in the deceased's position, would have made some provision for the applicants given their disabilities and the size of the estate. The court also noted that it was not appropriate to apply the broad general rule that primacy be accorded to widows in this case. The court will hear the parties as to the form of order and as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Naomi Amber Alice Niebour Pott is to be included as an applicant in the application made by Cameron David Niebour-Pott (by his litigation guardian), file number S2789/2009.

I indicate that I consider provision in the sum of $400,000 ought to be made for each of the applicants out of the estate of Bryan Frederick Niebour Pott.

I will hear the parties as to the form of order and as to 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.