CAROLINE ANNE BERESFORD RICHARD	Plaintiff
v
AXA TRUSTEES LIMITED (ACN 004 029 841) (formerly NATIONAL MUTUAL TRUSTEES LIMITED) (Who is sued in its capacity as Executor of the Will of the abovenamed Deceased)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Eames J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 August 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 September 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Richard v AXA Trustees Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 341

---

Testators Family Maintenance – will – application by adult daughter – substantial estate – residue held on discretionary trust for benefit of daughter during lifetime, and the remainder to form perpetual charitable trust – whether testatrix made adequate provision for proper maintenance and support – whether threshold test met – daughter suffering mental illness – testatrix not having accurate knowledge of extent of illness – daughter an invalid pensioner living in rental accommodation – whether daughter should have provision for purchase of home – relevance of autonomy, independence and control of funds by daughter – further provision ordered – section 91 Administration and Probate Act 1958

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R. Boaden	Slater & Gordon
For the Defendant	Mr H. Fraser	Peter J Walsh Carroll Kiernan & Forest

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application for family provision pursuant to s. 91 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958. The plaintiff, Caroline Anne Beresford Richard, is the sole natural daughter of Pauline Anne Browne who died on 11 March 1999. The plaintiff was born in 1943 and is now aged 56 years. Her parent’s marriage failed in 1957 when she was 14 years of age. The testatrix remarried in 1958 and her second husband, Patrick Browne, died in 1997.

The plaintiff married Luciano Saccotelli from which union three children were born. After the birth of the third child in November 1971 the plaintiff suffered post natal depression and was hospitalised for a month, having been misdiagnosed as suffering paranoid schizophrenia. She was treated on drugs but suffered a second nervous breakdown in 1983 after ceasing medication. She was then hospitalised again. On the occasion of this breakdown her mother was very supportive of the plaintiff. In 1978 the plaintiff and her husband separated and later divorced, and her husband retained custody of the three children. Between 1980 and 1993 the plaintiff was in and out of work and finally in 1993, on the advice of her doctor, left her job in the circulation department of Il Globo newspaper. She then received a disability support pension. Since that time she has been incapable of holding employment.

Since April 1992 the plaintiff has been a patient of Dr Lester A. Walton, a consultant psychiatrist. In a report tendered before the court without objection Dr Walton stated…

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 Richard v AXA Trustees Ltd

Details

AGLC: Richard v AXA Trustees Ltd [2000] VSC 341
Case: [2000] VSC 341
Decision Date: 1 September 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Richard v AXA Trustees Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria and involved a dispute regarding the interpretation and execution of a will. The testatrix, who had passed away, left a substantial estate to be distributed under a discretionary trust. The residue of the estate was to be held on trust, with the daughter benefiting during her lifetime, and the remainder forming a perpetual charitable trust. The daughter, who was an adult at the time, applied for further provision under section 91 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958, arguing that the testatrix had not made adequate provision for her proper maintenance and support. The daughter, who suffered from mental illness and lived in rented accommodation, sought provision for the purchase of a home and argued that she should have greater autonomy, independence, and control over the funds provided to her.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the testatrix had indeed made adequate provision for the daughter's maintenance and support, and if the threshold test under section 91 of the Act had been met. The court had to consider the extent of the daughter's mental illness, the testatrix's knowledge of this illness, and whether the daughter's living situation and financial circumstances justified further provision. The court also had to assess the relevance of the daughter's autonomy, independence, and control of funds in determining whether the daughter should receive additional support.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the testatrix had not made adequate provision for the daughter's proper maintenance and support, given her mental health issues and living situation. The court acknowledged that the testatrix did not have accurate knowledge of the full extent of the daughter's illness at the time of drafting the will. The court recognised the importance of the daughter's autonomy, independence, and control over her funds, and concluded that further provision was warranted. The court ordered that additional funds be made available to the daughter for the purchase of a home, ensuring that she had a stable living situation and greater control over her finances. This decision was based on the need to support the daughter's well-being and independence, taking into account her unique circumstances and the shortfall identified in the original testamentary provisions.

Orders