Re Ronim Pty Ltd

[1999] QCA 444

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Panochini v Jude [1999] QCA 444
PARTIES:	CORAL JESSIE PANOCHINI (Applicant/Appellant) v MARGARET JUDE, as executrix of the estate of Frederick Otto John, deceased (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 11025 of 1998 OS No 1822 of 1998
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING	Supreme Court at Brisbane
COURT:
DELIVERED ON:	29 October 1999
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 October 1999
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Davies and Thomas JJA
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS:	SUCCESSION – FAMILY PROVISION AND MAINTENANCE – JURISDICTION – PERSONS IN WHOSE FAVOUR ORDER MAY BE MADE – CHILDREN – STEPCHILDREN – testator's family maintenance application brought by stepchild of deceased – whether applicant fell within definition of "stepchild" in Part IV of the Succession Act 1981 – Re Burt [1988] 1 Qd R 23, Re Marstella [1989] 1 Qd R 638, Re Monckton [1996] 2 Qd R 174 discussed – effect of 20 June 1997 amendment to the Succession Act considered – whether amendment should be construed as affecting rights created upon death of testator in April 1997
STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – OPERATION AND EFFECT OF STATUTES – RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION – IN GENERAL – whether amending Act declaratory
Succession Act 1981, s 40, s 40A, s 41 Commonwealth of Australia v Orr (1981) 37 ALR 653, considered Hogan v Hogan [1981] 1 NSWLR 63, approved R v Cook, ex parte C (1985) 156 CLR 249, considered Re Burt [1988] 1 Qd R 23, considered Re Marstella [1989] 1 Qd R 638, considered Re Monckton [1996] 2 Qd R 174, considered
COUNSEL:	Mr G Koppenol, with him Mr L Stephens, for the appellant Mr A Wilson for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Sciacca's Lawyers for the appellant Stephens & Tozer for the respondent

1. THE COURT: The appellant brought a testator’s family maintenance application alleging that she was a stepchild of the deceased and that she was entitled to provision from his estate. Her application was dismissed by a trial division judge on the ground that she did not fall within the definition of “stepchild” in Part IV of the Succession Act 1981. The appeal is against that dismissal of her claim.

2. The appellant, who was born in 1942, was the daughter of Edward and Carol Hann. Her father died in 1960, and in 1968 her mother married Mr Frederick John. The appellant’s mother died in September 1996. Mr John, from whose estate the appellant seeks provision, died on 19 April 1997. The respondent obtained probate of the will on 23 May 1997.

3. On 20 June 1997 certain amendments were made to the Succession Act which widened the ambit of the definition of stepchild for the purposes of Part IV of the Succession Act 1981. It is common ground that if those provisions apply to the claim brought by the appellant, she satisfies the necessary definition of stepchild.

[4] Prior to that amendment, the relevant legislation (s 40 of the Succession Act 1981)
provided as follows:

“In this…