Rowan v Roche

Case [2005] WASCA 6

ROWAN & ANOR -v- ROCHE [2005] WASCA 6



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2005] WASCA 6
THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:FUL:140/200318 AUGUST 2004
Coram:MURRAY J
STEYTLER J
TEMPLEMAN J		19/01/05
15Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeals allowed
Order for provision out of estate varied
B
PDF Version
Parties:ZENOBIA MERLE ROWAN
RONALD FRED DOUGLAS as Administrator of the Estate of EDWARD JOHN HAMILTON ROWAN (DEC)
SUSAN FLORENCE ROCHE

Catchwords:
Succession
Large estate left by Will
Application for provision out of estate by adult child
Test to be applied in exercising discretion
Turns on own facts

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

Case References:
Bondelmonte v Blanckensee [1989] WAR 305
Knight v Anderson (1997) 17 WAR 85
Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201
Vigolo v Bostin (2002) 27 WAR 121
Bowcock v Bowcock [1969] 2 NSWR 755
Browne v Macaulay [1999] WASC 217
Dijkhuijs v Barclay (1988) 13 NSWLR 639
Fiorentini v O'Neill, unreported; SCt of NSW; Library No CA 40046/97; 4 December 1998
Kennedy v Jvancich [2003] NSWSC 441
Kitson & Anor v Franks & Anor [2001] WASCA 134
Lawrence v Lawrence [2004] WASC 90
Mayield v Lloyd-Williams [2004] NSWSC 419
Re Newell (1932) 49 WN (NSW) 181
Re Pope (1975) 11 SASR 571
Roche v Varnavides [2004] WASC 164
Vasiljev v Public Trustee [1974] 2 NSWLR 497
Warren v McKnight (1996) 40 NSWLR 390

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : ROWAN & ANOR -v- ROCHE [2005] WASCA 6 CORAM : MURRAY J
    STEYTLER J
    TEMPLEMAN J
HEARD : 18 AUGUST 2004 DELIVERED : 19 JANUARY 2005 FILE NO/S : FUL 140 of 2003
    FUL 143 of 2003
BETWEEN : ZENOBIA MERLE ROWAN
    First Appellant

    RONALD FRED DOUGLAS as Administrator of the Estate of EDWARD JOHN HAMILTON ROWAN (DEC)
    Second Appellant

    AND

    SUSAN FLORENCE ROCHE
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MASTER SANDERSON

Citation : ROCHE -v- DOUGLAS [2000] WASC 22

File No : CIV 2115 of 1999




(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Succession - Large estate left by Will - Application for provision out of estate by adult child - Test to be applied in exercising discretion - Turns on own facts




Legislation:

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




Result:

Appeals allowed


Order for provision out of estate varied


Category: B


Representation:


Counsel:


    First Appellant : Mr J G Young
    Second Appellant : Mr K G Robson
    Respondent : Mr M J McCusker QC & Mr K F Sleight


Solicitors:

    First Appellant : Franklyn Simon Wheatley
    Second Appellant : Robertson Hayles
    Respondent : Mayberry Hammond



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

Bondelmonte v Blanckensee [1989] WAR 305
Knight v Anderson (1997) 17 WAR 85
Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201
Vigolo v Bostin (2002) 27 WAR 121



(Page 3)

Case(s) also cited:



Bowcock v Bowcock [1969] 2…

Continue reading Rowan v Roche

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rowan v Roche [2005] WASCA 6
Case
[2005] WASCA 6
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rowan v Roche involved an application by a child, Rowan, seeking provision from the estate of her deceased father, Roche. Roche passed away leaving a sizeable estate, and Rowan, despite being an adult, applied for financial support from the estate. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate test to be applied in determining whether to make an order for provision out of the estate, and what factors should guide such a decision. The court had to consider whether the decision should be based on the needs of the applicant or whether it should take into account the wishes of the deceased and the circumstances of other potential beneficiaries.

The court examined the relevant statutory framework, focusing on section 54 of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld). It held that the court should consider the deceased's intentions and the needs of the applicant, as well as the interests of other beneficiaries. The court recognised that while the needs of the applicant are an important consideration, they are not the sole determinant. Instead, the court must balance the applicant's needs against the deceased's wishes and the interests of other potential beneficiaries. The Supreme Court found that the primary judge had erred in focusing too heavily on the applicant's needs without adequately considering the deceased's intentions and the circumstances of other potential beneficiaries.

Following this analysis, the court allowed the appeals and varied the orders for provision out of the estate. The new orders reflected a more balanced approach, taking into account the deceased's intentions and the interests of all relevant parties. The decision underscored the importance of a nuanced and context-specific approach when making orders for provision out of an estate.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeals allowed

Order for provision out of estate varied

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.