Pogorelic v Banovich

Case [2007] WASC 45


POGORELIC -v- BANOVICH & ORS [2007] WASC 45



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2007] WASC 45
Case No:CIV:1306/200422, 23 NOVEMBER & 6 DECEMBER 2006
Coram:MASTER NEWNES26/02/07
18Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Order for further provision from Estate
B
PDF Version
Parties:GOLDI POGORELIC
MILOVAN ALEXANDER BANOVICH
ELIZABETH MARWICK
VANESSA KATHERINE POGORELIC

Catchwords:

Succession
Application by widow under Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972 (WA) for provision from Estate of late husband
Whether entitled to matrimonial home
Relevance of lifestyle during marriage to proper provision from Estate
Whether pension entitlement a relevant factor
Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972 (WA), s 6

Case References:

Bondelmonte v Blanckensee [1989] WAR 305
Coates v National Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd (1956) 95 CLR 494
Goodman v Windeyer (1980) 144 CLR 490
Grainger v The Public Trustee, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950670; 6 December 1995
Hughes v National Trustees Executors and Agency Co of Australasia Ltd (1979) 143 CLR 134
King v White [1992] 2 VR 417
Lawrence v Lawrence [2004] WASC 90
Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith v Scales (1962) 107 CLR 9
Singer v Berghouse (No 2) (1994) 181 CLR 201
Vigolo v Bostin (2005) 221 CLR 191
Welsh v Mulcock [1924] NZLR 673


JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CHAMBERS
CITATION : POGORELIC -v- BANOVICH & ORS [2007] WASC 45 CORAM : MASTER NEWNES HEARD : 22, 23 NOVEMBER & 6 DECEMBER 2006 DELIVERED : 27 FEBRUARY 2007 FILE NO/S : CIV 1306 of 2004 MATTER : Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972 (WA)

    and

    The Will of ANTON POGORELIC late of 47 Haig Road, Attadale, Western Australia (Dec)
BETWEEN : GOLDI POGORELIC
    Plaintiff

    AND

    MILOVAN ALEXANDER BANOVICH
    First Defendant

    ELIZABETH MARWICK
    Second Defendant

    VANESSA KATHERINE POGORELIC
    Third Defendant

(Page 2)



Catchwords:

Succession - Application by widow under Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972 (WA) for provision from Estate of late husband - Whether entitled to matrimonial home - Relevance of lifestyle during marriage to proper provision from Estate - Whether pension entitlement a relevant factor - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972 (WA), s 6

Result:

Order for further provision from Estate

Category: B


Representation:

Counsel:


    Plaintiff : Mr J C Curthoys
    First Defendant : Mr R A C Cullen
    Second Defendant : Dr P R MacMillan
    Third Defendant : Dr P R MacMillan

Solicitors:

    Plaintiff : Frichot & Frichot
    First Defendant : Cullen Babington Hughes
    Second Defendant : Chan Galic
    Third Defendant : Chan Galic



Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bondelmonte v Blanckensee [1989] WAR 305
Coates v National Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd (1956) 95 CLR 494
Goodman v Windeyer (1980) 144 CLR 490
Grainger v The Public Trustee, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950670; 6 December 1995

(Page 3)

Hughes v National Trustees Executors and Agency Co…

Continue reading Pogorelic v Banovich

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pogorelic v Banovich [2007] WASC 45
Case
[2007] WASC 45
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Pogorelic v Banovich, the widow of the deceased sought additional provision from his estate under the Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972 (WA). The central issue was whether she was entitled to a portion of the matrimonial home, and if so, what amount would be appropriate. The widow argued that the pension entitlement of the deceased was not a relevant factor in determining the appropriate provision from the estate. The court had to consider the lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage, the widow's financial needs, and the deceased's pension entitlement.

The court examined the nature of the relationship between the parties and the contributions made by each during the marriage. It was necessary to assess whether the lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage justified a larger share of the estate for the widow. The court also considered whether the deceased's pension entitlement should be taken into account in determining the appropriate provision from the estate. The widow's reliance on her late husband's pension payments was deemed relevant in calculating the necessary provision.

The court found that the widow was entitled to a larger share of the estate, considering the lifestyle during the marriage and the financial needs of the widow. The court concluded that the deceased's pension entitlement was a relevant factor in determining the appropriate provision from the estate. The widow's entitlement to a portion of the matrimonial home was recognised, and the court ordered that further provision be made from the estate.

The court ordered that further provision be made from the estate to meet the widow's financial needs. The amount was determined based on the lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage, the widow's current financial situation, and the deceased's pension entitlement. The court emphasised the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each case when making such determinations.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order for further provision from Estate

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.