Re Schlink; Keane v Corns
Case
•
[2020] VSC 180
•15 April 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Re Schlink; Keane v Corns [2020] VSC 180
[2020] VSC 180
15 April 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Re Schlink; Keane v Corns, the Court was presented with an application from the plaintiff, the deceased's adult daughter, seeking further provision under the Family Provision Act 1958 (Vic). The deceased had left a legacy of $50,000 to the plaintiff but had otherwise distributed the residue of his estate to the defendant, the deceased's son. The plaintiff argued that the deceased had not satisfied his moral obligation towards her, despite the legacy, and that further provision should be made to her from the estate. The court was tasked with determining whether the deceased had fulfilled his moral obligation to the plaintiff and whether it was appropriate to make a further provision in her favour.
The legal issues before the Court involved interpreting the deceased's moral obligation to the plaintiff and whether that obligation was satisfied by the bequest of $50,000. The Court also had to consider whether a further provision should be made to the plaintiff under section 91 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic), and if so, what form that provision should take. The Court needed to balance the statutory criteria for making a provision against the deceased's testamentary freedom, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case.
The Court found that the deceased had indeed satisfied his moral obligation to the plaintiff by the bequest of $50,000. However, it recognised that the plaintiff's needs and contributions to the deceased were significant, and the distribution of the estate did not adequately reflect those contributions. The Court decided to exercise its discretion under section 91A of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) to make a further provision to the plaintiff. It granted a Crisp order, directing that a specific sum of money be paid to the plaintiff from the estate, thereby ensuring that the plaintiff received adequate provision in line with the moral obligations owed to her by the deceased.
The Court ordered that a sum of $50,000 be paid to the plaintiff from the estate of the deceased. This order was made under the authority of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic), reflecting the Court's consideration of the deceased's moral obligation and the plaintiff's needs.
The legal issues before the Court involved interpreting the deceased's moral obligation to the plaintiff and whether that obligation was satisfied by the bequest of $50,000. The Court also had to consider whether a further provision should be made to the plaintiff under section 91 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic), and if so, what form that provision should take. The Court needed to balance the statutory criteria for making a provision against the deceased's testamentary freedom, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case.
The Court found that the deceased had indeed satisfied his moral obligation to the plaintiff by the bequest of $50,000. However, it recognised that the plaintiff's needs and contributions to the deceased were significant, and the distribution of the estate did not adequately reflect those contributions. The Court decided to exercise its discretion under section 91A of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) to make a further provision to the plaintiff. It granted a Crisp order, directing that a specific sum of money be paid to the plaintiff from the estate, thereby ensuring that the plaintiff received adequate provision in line with the moral obligations owed to her by the deceased.
The Court ordered that a sum of $50,000 be paid to the plaintiff from the estate of the deceased. This order was made under the authority of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic), reflecting the Court's consideration of the deceased's moral obligation and the plaintiff's needs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Succession Law
-
Res Judicata
-
Unconscionable Conduct
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Re Schlink; Keane v Corns [2020] VSC 180
Most Recent Citation
Collins v Hawkes [2025] NSWSC 316
Cases Citing This Decision
18
Collins v Hawkes
[2025] NSWSC 316
Clarke v Clarke
[2022] NSWSC 1721
Wertheim v Perpetual Trustee Company Limited
[2021] NSWSC 1229
Cases Cited
15
Statutory Material Cited
0
Vigolo v Bostin
[2005] HCA 11
Singer v Berghouse
[1994] HCA 40
Slack v Rogan
[2013] NSWSC 522