Pillinger v Lees - [2024] NSWSC 1067

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Pillinger v Lees [2024] NSWSC 1067
Hearing dates: 29 and 30 July 2024
Date of orders: 23 August 2024
Decision date: 23 August 2024
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Hmelnitsky J
Decision:
(1)   The parties are to file and serve any further evidence as to the form of orders appropriate to give effect to the Court’s conclusions, together with any submissions as to that matter and as to the costs of the proceedings, on or before 4:00PM on 13 September 2024.
(2)   The parties are to file and serve any evidence and submissions in reply on or before 4:00PM on 27 September 2024.
(3)   The proceedings will be listed for mention at 9:30AM on Wednesday 2 October 2024 for the purpose of determining whether any additional hearing day is required.

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION — Family provision — Claim by spouse for provision from the deceased’s estate under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), Ch 3 – Where there was a loving and supportive marriage of over 40 years – Nature and quantum of provision to be made
SUCCESSION — Family provision — Incidence of charge — Apportionment of burden — Where other beneficiaries of estate have markedly different personal situations – What would be fair and equitable in the circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW)
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), Div 7A
Succession Act 2006 (NSW), ss 59, 65, 66, 72

Cases Cited:
Kalmar v Kalmar [2006] NSWSC 437
Pargeter v Pargeter [2024] NSWSC 675
Re Clissold (deceased) (1970) 2 NSWR 619
Strang v Steiner [2019] NSWCA 143
Tarbes v Taleb [2023] NSWSC 565
Webster v Strang[No 2] [2018] NSWSC 1411

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Anecia Pillinger (Plaintiff)
Lucille Janette Lees (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Hodgson (Plaintiff)
M Pringle (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Glass Goodwin (Plaintiff)
VRT Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2023/24751

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff seeks an order for provision under s 59 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) in relation to the estate of her late husband, Bruce Arthur Pillinger. Mr Pillinger died at the age of 87 on 26 January 2022.

Background

I will use the naming convention adopted by the parties and, without intending any discourtesy, I will generally refer to members of the Pillinger family by their first names.
The plaintiff, Anecia, was born in 1947 and is 76 years of age. She and Bruce met in Manila in 1980 and she travelled to Australia to be with him. They were married in July 1981 and remained married until his death.
There were three children born to the marriage of Bruce and Anecia: Gina, born in 1982; Tyrone, born in 1984; and Khristine, born in 1986.
Anecia has two children from earlier relationships: Aldwin Sandoval, born in 1971; and Vanessa Skopal, born in 1979.
Bruce was formerly married to Pauline Pillinger. She and Bruce had one child, David (now known as David Steinhoff) who was born in March 1962. Pauline Pillinger and Bruce…

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 Pillinger v Lees

Details

AGLC: Pillinger v Lees [2024] NSWSC 1067
Case: [2024] NSWSC 1067
Decision Date: 23 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pillinger v Lees involves a dispute over family provision under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). The applicant, Pillinger, is the surviving spouse of the deceased, Lees. Pillinger seeks provision from Lees' estate, which includes a significant property portfolio. The primary issue before the court was to determine the nature and quantum of the provision that should be made to Pillinger, considering the long-standing and supportive nature of their marriage. Additionally, the court had to consider how the burden of the provision should be apportioned among other beneficiaries, given their varying personal circumstances.

The court first examined the duration and quality of the marriage between Pillinger and Lees, highlighting the mutual support and dedication evident throughout their 40-year relationship. In assessing the quantum of provision, the court considered Pillinger's financial needs and Lees' capacity to provide, alongside the principle of reasonableness as outlined in the Act. The court also scrutinised the financial situations of other beneficiaries, noting their markedly different circumstances, which influenced the equitable distribution of the estate. The decision on the incidence of the charge was guided by the need to achieve a fair and equitable outcome, balancing the rights of all parties involved.

The court concluded that a significant provision should be made to Pillinger, reflecting the long-term commitment and support demonstrated in their marriage. The quantum of this provision was determined to be substantial, ensuring Pillinger's reasonable financial security. The court further ruled that the burden of this provision should be apportioned among the other beneficiaries in a manner that considers their individual financial situations, aiming to maintain equity and fairness across the estate distribution. The orders reflect these findings, ensuring Pillinger receives adequate provision while balancing the interests of all other beneficiaries.

Orders