Sch v RBG

Case [2025] WASC 98

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   SCH -v- RBG [2025] WASC 98

CORAM:   WHITBY J

HEARD:   5 FEBRUARY 2025

DELIVERED          :   26 MARCH 2025

FILE NO/S:   CIV [redacted]

BETWEEN:   SCH

Plaintiff

AND

[redacted] as administrator of the estate of [redacted]

[redacted] as administrator of the estate of [redacted]

First Defendants

[redacted] as beneficiary of the estate of [redacted]

Second Defendant

[redacted] as beneficiary of the estate of [redacted]

Third Defendant

[redacted] as beneficiary of the estate of [redacted]

Fourth Defendant

[redacted] as beneficiary of the estate of [redacted]

Fifth Defendant

[redacted] as beneficiary of the estate of [redacted]

Sixth Defendant

[redacted] as beneficiary of the estate of [redacted]

Seventh Defendant

[redacted] as beneficiary of the estate of [redacted]

Eighth Defendant


Catchwords:

Family provision and maintenance - Application made by daughter against estate of her mother - Value of estate approximately $626,000 - Whether entitlement on intestacy makes adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of daughter - Assessment of needs of deceased's other non-claimant children - Significance of disability pension and NDIS entitlements

Legislation:

Administration Act 1903 (WA)
Family Provision Act 1972 (WA)
Non‑contentious Probate Rules 1967 (WA)

Result:

Plaintiff's application dismissed

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : No appearance
First Defendants : In person
Second Defendant : In person
Third Defendant : In person
Fourth Defendant : In person
Fifth Defendant : In person
Sixth Defendant : In person
Seventh Defendant : No appearance
Eighth Defendant : In person

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : In person
First Defendants : In person
Second Defendant : In person
Third Defendant : In person
Fourth Defendant : In person
Fifth Defendant : In person
Sixth Defendant : In person
Seventh Defendant : No appearance
Eighth Defendant : In person

Cases referred to in decision(s):

Boscolo v Australian Unity Trustees Limited as administrator of the estate of Mario Boscolo [2023] WASC 391

Devereaux-Warnes v Hall [No 3] [2007] WASCA 235

Finlay v Pereg [2022] NSWSC 32

Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87

Goodchild v James (1994) 13 WAR 229

Grey v Harrison [1997] 2 VR 359

Kilkenny v Kilkenny [2018] WASCA 197

Lemon v Mead [2017] WASCA 215; (2017) 53 WAR 76

Musasghi v Gebremariam [2022] WASCA 37

Re Allen; Allen v Manchester [1922] NZLR 218

Stone v Braun [2015] WASCA 103

Tobin v Dodd [2004] WASCA 288

Vigolo v Bostin [2005] HCA 11; (2005) CLR 191

Woodley v Woodley [2018] WASCA 149

Worladge v Doddridge [1957] HCA 45

WHITBY J:

Overview

  1. This proceeding concerns an application by [redacted - plaintiff] for further provision from the estate of her mother, [redacted].  [redacted] died intestate on 5 September 2020.  I will refer to [redacted] as the deceased.

  2. The deceased had eight children, all who survived her:

    (1)[redacted] (the plaintiff);

    (2)[redacted] (first‑named first defendant and third defendant);

    (3)[redacted] (second‑named first defendant and second defendant);

    (4)[redacted] (fourth defendant);

    (5)[redacted] (fifth defendant);

    (6)[redacted] (sixth defendant);

    (7)[redacted] (seventh defendant); and

    (8)[redacted] (eighth defendant).

  3. Given that many of the parties…

Continue reading Sch v RBG

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sch v RBG [2025] WASC 98
Case
[2025] WASC 98
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sch v RBG involved a daughter, Sch, who applied to the Supreme Court of Western Australia under section 6 of the Family Provision Act 1972 for further and better provision from the estate of her deceased mother, RBG. The estate was valued at approximately $626,000, and Sch argued that the intestacy provisions of the Administration Act 1903 did not adequately provide for her proper maintenance and support. The other surviving children of RBG, who stood to inherit equally under the intestacy provisions, opposed Sch's application. The court had to determine whether the existing statutory entitlements of the other children, coupled with their other benefits such as disability pensions and NDIS entitlements, were sufficient to provide for Sch's proper maintenance and support.

The primary legal issue was whether the statutory entitlements of the other children were adequate for Sch's proper maintenance and support. The court considered the distribution of the estate, Sch's financial needs, and the other children's existing benefits. It was also necessary to assess whether the statutory entitlements under the Administration Act, combined with the other benefits available to the other children, were sufficient to meet Sch's needs. The court examined Sch's personal circumstances, including her financial situation, living arrangements, and any special needs, against the backdrop of the estate's distribution and the other children's entitlements.

The court found that the statutory entitlements of the other children, together with their additional benefits, adequately provided for Sch's proper maintenance and support. It concluded that the equal distribution of the estate, as per the Administration Act, and the other benefits available to the other children, met the requirements for Sch's maintenance and support. The court's decision was based on the understanding that the other children's entitlements, along with their disability pensions and NDIS entitlements, were sufficient to ensure Sch's well-being. Therefore, the application for further and better provision was dismissed.

The final orders of the court included dismissing Sch's application for further and better provision from the estate and affirming the existing statutory entitlements of the other children. The court also directed that the estate be distributed equally among the surviving children, as per the intestacy provisions of the Administration Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

[redacted - plaintiff] seeks an order under s 6 of the Family Provision Act 1972 (WA) (the Act) for further and better provision from the estate of the deceased by modifying the rules of intestacy set out in s 14 of the Administration Act 1903 (WA) (Administration Act) so as to give the whole of the estate to her for her proper maintenance, support, education and advancement in life. Each of the defendants, other than [redacted - seventh defendant], entered an appearance. Each of those participating defendants appeared in person at the hearing of the application. While none of the other children of the deceased seek further provision from the deceased's estate, they each oppose [redacted - plaintiff]'s application for further and better provision from the deceased's estate and seek to preserve their existing statutory entitlements out of the estate of the deceased. As the deceased died intestate, the entitlements of her estate are governed by the Administration Act. Section 14 of the Administration Act contains a table which sets out the entitlements upon intestacy. Item 5 sets out the entitlements when a deceased leaves no husband or wife but a child or children, as is the case here. As there are eight surviving children of the deceased, they each share equally in the deceased's estate.[1][1] Section 14 (2B) Administration Act. The administrators of the deceased's estate filed a statement of assets and liabilities of the estate pursuant to r 9B of the Non‑contentious Probate Rules 1967 (WA) estimating the gross assets of the deceased at the date of her death at $649,500. At the hearing, [redacted - first defendants] gave evidence that the net value of the estate was $626,290.01. [redacted - seventh defendant] has accepted $25,000 by way of Deed of Family Arrangement in full and final satisfaction of her entitlements in administration. By affidavit sworn on 8 June 2022, [redacted - first‑named first defendant] deposed that the following total amounts had been distributed to each of the beneficiaries:[2](1)[redacted - seventh defendant]: $25,000;(2)[redacted - eighth defendant]: $81,087.13;(3)[redacted - first‑named first defendant and third defendant]: $81,087.13;(4)[redacted - sixth defendant]: $81,087.13;(5)[redacted - fourth defendant]: $81,087.13;(6)[redacted - second‑named first defendant and second defendant]: $79,087.13 and a car with a value of $2,000;(7)[redacted - fifth defendant]: $81,087.13; and(8)[redacted - plaintiff]: $78,641.27.[2] Affidavit of [redacted - First‑named First Defendant and Third Defendant] sworn 8 June 2022 [11] - [12]. The amount distributed to [redacted - plaintiff] comprises $59,025.62 in distributions to [redacted - plaintiff], $13,807.40 in costs payable by [redacted - plaintiff] to the estate pursuant to a Certificate of Taxation dated 24 June 2021 and $5,808.38 in costs paid to Gregson & Associates by virtue of a Debt Appropriation Order in the Magistrates Court.[3] [redacted - first defendants] gave evidence that they were currently unable to pay any additional amounts to [redacted - plaintiff] to make her distributions equal to the other beneficiaries due to an order of the court restraining the administrators from disposing of or otherwise dealing with the estate of the deceased.[4] [redacted - first defendants] gave evidence that they intend to distribute the estate so that each of the seven beneficiaries (other than [redacted - seventh defendant]) receive equal shares.[5][3] Affidavit of [redacted - First‑named First Defendant and Third Defendant] sworn 8 June 2022 [13] - [14].[4] Orders of Hill J made on 23 June 2022.[5] ts 5 February 2025, pages 205 - 206.