SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Oswell v Jones & Ors [2007] QSC 384
PARTIES:
MARGARET FRANCES OSWELL
(applicant)
v
MARGARET ANNE JONES, ELIZABETH CATHERINE JONES and JAMES GEORGE DEEB AS EXECUTORS FOR THE ESTATE OF FRANCIS BRUCE OSWELL DECEASED
(first respondents)
and
PETER WILSON AS LITIGATION GUARDIAN FOR LEWIS GWYNN JONES
(second respondent)
and
SIMON JAMES OSWELL and CHRISTOPHER JOHN OSWELL
(third respondents)FILE NO:
S4123 of 2004
DIVISION:
Trial
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:
14 December 2007
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
3 December 2007; 4 December 2007
JUDGE:
Chesterman J
ORDER:
Order in terms of paragraph 81 of this judgment
CATCHWORDS:
SUCCESSION – EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS – FAMILY PROVISION AND MAINTENANCE – FAILURE BY TESTATOR TO MAKE SUFFICIENT PROVISION FOR APPLICANT – PRINCIPLES ON WHICH RELEIF GRANTED – PRINCIPLES OF EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED– where the testator had three adult children from his first marriage – where the applicant was the severely disabled daughter of the first marriage - where the testator left each of those adult children a fixed sum of money - where the testator left the majority of his estate to his second wife and her grandson - where the applicant made application for an order that better provision be made for her out of the testator’s estate - whether the applicant was left with inadequate provision for her proper maintenance and support – whether an order for the transfer of the entire estate or some lesser part of the estate would constitute proper maintenance and support
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), s1209L, s1209M, s1209P (2)(b)
Succession Act 1981 (Qld), s 41, s52Bosch v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd [1938] AC 463, applied
Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201, applied
Vigolo v Bostin (2004) 221 CLR 191, applied
Whitmont v Lloyd NSWSC Unrep. 31 July 1995, appliedCOUNSEL:
Ms. R.M. Treston, with her Mr D Salisbury for the applicant
Mr D R M Murphy S.C. for the first respondents
Mr D.J Morgan for the second respondent
Mr A.S Mellick for the third respondentsSOLICITORS:
Biggs & Biggs for the applicant
McCullough Robertson for the first respondents
MPN Lawyers for the second respondent
John Cross & Co for the third respondents
Francis Bruce Oswell (‘the testator’) died on 19 August 2003 at the age of 83. His wife of 41 years, Glenda Mavis Oswell, predeceased him in 1986. On 28 July 2003, 22 days before he died, the testator made a will. It was admitted to Probate on
6 October 2004.
The executors of the will are Margaret Anne Jones, her daughter-in-law
Elizabeth Catherine Jones, and Mr James George Deeb, a partner in the executors’ firm of solicitors.
Mrs Margaret Jones had known the testator and his wife for many years. She was a widow when Mrs Oswell died in 1986. She and the testator deepened their friendship. They agreed not to marry but cohabited from 1987 until December 2002 when the testator…
Continue reading Oswell v. Jones & Ors
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Oswell v Jones [2007] QSC 384
- Case
- [2007] QSC 384
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had been left with inadequate provision for her proper maintenance and support, and if so, whether an order for the transfer of the entire estate or some lesser part of the estate would constitute proper maintenance and support. The court had to consider the principles and circumstances on which relief was granted, the discretion exercised, and the various factors to be considered in determining the applicant's entitlement to a portion of the estate.
The court determined that the applicant had indeed been left with inadequate provision for her proper maintenance and support. It considered the principles and discretion exercised in family provision and maintenance cases, as well as the specific circumstances of the case, including the applicant's disability and financial situation. The court ultimately concluded that an order for the transfer of a lesser part of the estate would constitute proper maintenance and support for the applicant. The court exercised its discretion and made an order in terms of paragraph 81 of the judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
Order in terms of paragraph 81 of this judgment
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.