Order made for provision (parties to bring in Short Minutes of Order)
Catchwords:
SUCCESSION — Family provision — Moderate sized estate ($1.6M property less liabilities of $35,000, sale costs and costs) — Estate left to deceased’s 3 adult children — Claim by one of 6 grandchildren who had resided with his grandmother (the deceased) for lengthy periods — Various issues raised including the extent of the plaintiff’s contributions and his financial circumstances in particular his income and expenses — Plaintiff claims provision for accommodation and fund for contingencies but without any evidence bearing upon these matters — Claims for provision outlined in submissions rejected in light of absence of evidence — Provision for advancement in life and contingencies given
SUCCESSION — Family provision — Factors warranting
SUCCESSION — Family provision — Contingencies — Discussion regarding nature of orders for provision and contingencies
SUCCESSION — Family provision — Form of provision — Cross-examination demonstrated plaintiff engaged in online gambling activities — Provision ordered in the form of funds to be held on trust
[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 Papantoniou v Foundouradakis
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Papantoniou v Foundouradakis [2023] NSWSC 1374
Case
[2023] NSWSC 1374
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of Papantoniou v Foundouradakis involved a dispute over the distribution of a moderate-sized estate, valued at approximately $1.6 million after accounting for liabilities and costs. The deceased had left the estate to her three adult children, while one of her six grandchildren, Papantoniou, sought a provision under the Family Provision Act. Papantoniou claimed that he had made significant contributions to the deceased during her lifetime and had resided with her for extended periods. He argued for provision for accommodation and a fund for contingencies, but did not provide any evidence to support these claims.
The court was required to determine whether Papantoniou's claims were substantiated and whether any provision should be made under the Family Provision Act. This involved assessing the nature and extent of his contributions to the deceased, his financial circumstances, and the reasonableness of his claims for provision. The court also needed to consider whether a provision for contingencies was appropriate and, if so, what form it should take.
The court found that Papantoniou had not provided any evidence to substantiate his claims for accommodation and contingencies. Therefore, these claims were rejected. However, the court acknowledged that Papantoniou had made some financial contributions to the deceased and that he had resided with her for lengthy periods. In light of these factors, the court ordered a provision for Papantoniou in the form of funds to be held on trust. The court noted that Papantoniou had engaged in online gambling activities, which was revealed during cross-examination. This factor was taken into account in determining the appropriate form of the provision.