Legal Research
Cases
Reid v Carnes

Reid v Carnes

Case [2024] TASSC 42 19 August 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2024] TASSC 42

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Reid v Carnes [2024] TASSC 42
PARTIES:	REID, Kayla Jane
v
CARNES, Tracey Maree in her capacity as Administrator of the Estate of Jason Michael Reid
FILE NO:	135/2023
DELIVERED ON:	19 August 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	20 May 2024
JUDGMENT OF:	Daly AsJ
CATCHWORDS:

Succession – Family provision and maintenance – Criteria for determining application – Family provision claim
made by adult daughter – Surviving spouse or partner
Testator's Family Maintenance Act 1912 s 3(1)

Aust Dig Succession [1427]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Applicant: P Zeeman
Respondent: D Zeeman

Solicitors:

Applicant: Murdoch Clarke
Respondent: Butler McIntyre & Butler

Judgment Number:	[2024] TASSC 42
Number of paragraphs:	53

Serial No 42/2024 File No 135/2023

KAYLA JANE REID v TRACEY MAREE CARNES

in her capacity as Administrator of the Estate of Jason Michael Reid

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	DALY AsJ 19 August 2024
Introduction

1 This is an application made under the Testator's Family Maintenance Act 1912 ("the Act"), s 3 in relation to the estate of Jason Michael Reid. Mr Reid died on 18 December 2021, without leaving a will. He was survived by his daughter Kayla Jane Reid (the applicant) and his spouse, Tracey Maree Carnes (Ms Carnes). Ms Carnes is Mr Reid's spouse for the purposes of the Intestacy Act 2010 because for more than two years before he died, they had been in a significant relationship within the meaning of the Relationships Act 2003, s 4.
2 On 24 November 2022, letters of administration were granted to Ms Carnes, allowing her to deal with Mr Reid's intestate estate. On 18 January 2024, the applicant brought this application for provision to be made out of the estate of her late father.

The Testator's Family Maintenance Act and some relevant principles

3 The jurisdiction of the Court to make an order for further provision, as sought by the applicant, is contained in the Testator’s Family Maintenance Act 1912, s 3, which relevantly provides in subs (1):

"3 Claims for maintenance against estate of deceased person
(1) If a person dies, whether testate or intestate, and in terms of his will or as a result of his intestacy any person by whom or on whose behalf application for provision out of his estate may be made under this Act is left without adequate provision for his proper maintenance and support thereafter, the Court or a judge may, in its or his discretion, on application made by or on behalf of the last-mentioned person, order that such provision as the Court or judge, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, thinks proper shall be made out of the estate of the deceased person for all or any of the persons by whom or on whose behalf such an application may be made, and may make such other order in the matter, including an order as to costs, as the Court or judge…

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 Reid v Carnes

Details

AGLC: Reid v Carnes [2024] TASSC 42
Case: [2024] TASSC 42
Decision Date: 19 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in Reid v Carnes were a daughter, Ms Reid, and the executor of the estate of her deceased father, Mr Carnes. The dispute involved a family provision claim under the Family Provision Act 1969, where the daughter sought reasonable financial provision from her father’s estate, arguing she had been inadequately provided for. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether Ms Reid’s claim was properly brought under the Act, if she was a ‘dependant’ within the meaning of the statute, and whether the executor of the estate had exercised their discretion properly in not making provision for her. Another issue was whether the court should consider the conduct of the daughter towards her father in determining the claim.

The court found that Ms Reid’s claim was validly brought, and she was a dependant for the purposes of the Act. The court determined that the executor had not exercised their discretion reasonably in not making provision for Ms Reid. It held that the conduct of Ms Reid towards her father was relevant and that the court should take it into account when deciding the application. Ultimately, the court made an order that the executor provide Ms Reid with a lump sum payment of $200,000, considering the circumstances of the case and the statutory criteria.

Orders