Pargeter v Pargeter - [2024] NSWSC 675

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Pargeter v Pargeter [2024] NSWSC 675
Hearing dates: 27-28 May 2024
Date of orders: 28 May 2024
Decision date: 31 May 2024
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Hmelnitsky J
Decision:
(1)   Orders that of the ‘lump sum’ provision ordered in Order 1(a) of the Short Minutes of Order:
(a)   The first $100,000 be borne by Richard Pargeter (with his consent); and
(b)   The balance of $50,000 be borne by the remaining specific legatees (other than Mark Hillman), namely the McGrath Foundation, Heart Research Australia, Breast Cancer Trials, the Smith Family, Julie Hoppett, Jacqueline Friggieri, Victoria Hillman, Franklin Hillman and Lynne Evans, pro rata according to their respective pecuniary legacies as a proportion of $310,000.
(2)   Orders that the ‘portable life estate’ provision ordered in Order 1(b) of the Short Minutes of Order be borne by the residuary beneficiaries pro rata according to their interest in the residue, noting the appointment of Alexander Nott as trustee.

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION – Family provision – Nature of orders – Settlement – Burden of provision – Whether provision to come out of specific legacies or residuary estate

Legislation Cited:
Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW), s 13 (repealed)
Succession Act 2006 (NSW), ss 59, 65

Cases Cited:
Cantrell v Williams; Estate of Thomas Brindle [2004] NSWSC 579
Crisp v Burns Philp Trustee Company Ltd (Supreme Court (NSW), Holland J, 18 December 1979, unreported)
Hoobin v Hoobin [2004] NSWSC 705
Webster v Strang [No 2] [2018] NSWSC 1411

Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Trevor Maurice Pargeter (Plaintiff)
Richard Le-Monde Pargeter (First Defendant)
Lynne Marion Pargeter (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Paul Glissan (Plaintiff)
Andrew Stevens (Defendants)
John Armfield (Residuary Beneficiaries)
Solicitors:
Guardian Solicitors (Plaintiff)
Lexington Law (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2023/180498

JUDGMENT

These proceedings were commenced by way of a summons filed 6 June 2023. The plaintiff seeks an order for provision pursuant to s 59 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) and costs against the estate of his deceased daughter.
The plaintiff is Mr Trevor Maurice Pargeter (Trevor). The deceased, Lesley Caron Nott, was his daughter. The deceased died on 7 June 2022 at the age of 61, leaving a will dated 20 August 2021 (the Will). The defendants are Richard Le-Monde Pargeter (Richard), Trevor’s son and the deceased’s brother, and Lynne Marion Evans (Lynne), a friend of the deceased. The defendants are the executors of the deceased estate pursuant to a grant of probate dated 15 June 2023. At the time of her death, the deceased was married to Mark Hillman (Mark).
The proceedings were listed for final hearing before me commencing 27 May 2024 with an estimate of three days. On the morning of the first day, the parties informed me that they had resolved all matters save for the question of where the burden of provision was to lie.
I stood the matter over until 2:00PM on 28 May 2024 for the purpose of hearing submissions on that question. As they had foreshadowed, the residuary beneficiaries of the…

Grounds of appeal

[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 Pargeter v Pargeter

Details

AGLC: Pargeter v Pargeter [2024] NSWSC 675
Case: [2024] NSWSC 675
Decision Date: 31 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were Pargeter and Pargeter. The dispute was centred around family provision, specifically the nature of the orders made in relation to a settlement. The court had to decide whether the provision to be made to the applicant should come from specific legacies or from the residuary estate. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue that the court had to determine was the appropriate source of the provision to be made to the applicant under the Family Law Act. The court was required to consider the principles of family provision and the nature of the orders that should be made in this particular case. It was necessary to determine whether the provision should be made from specific legacies or from the residuary estate, and to assess the burden of provision on the estate.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the relevant legislation and case law on family provision. The court also took into account the specific circumstances of the case, including the nature of the settlement and the interests of the parties involved. The court found that the provision should be made from the residuary estate rather than from specific legacies. The court reasoned that this approach would be more equitable and would not unduly burden the estate.

The court ordered that the provision to be made to the applicant should come from the residuary estate. This decision ensured that the applicant's needs were met while also maintaining the integrity of the settlement and minimising the burden on the estate.

Orders