Schubert v Johnsen

Schubert v Johnsen involved a son bringing a claim against the estate of his late father, seeking additional provision under the Family Provision Act. The son contended that he was not adequately provided for because his father had a moral obligation to support his own adult son. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issue was whether the son's claim for additional provision could be grounded on the father's alleged moral obligation to support his adult son. The court had to determine whether this moral obligation was a valid basis for a claim under the Family Provision Act.

The court considered the statutory provisions and relevant case law, concluding that the act does not recognise claims based on moral obligations outside of the immediate family context. The court emphasised that claims under the Family Provision Act must be grounded in actual or presumed obligations of support, typically owed to spouses, de facto partners, or minor children. The son's claim was dismissed as it was based on a perceived moral obligation to support an adult child, which is not a recognised basis for a claim under the Act. The court held that the son's entitlement to support from his father did not extend beyond what was already provided in the will, and therefore the claim failed.

The Supreme Court of Victoria dismissed the son's claim for additional provision, finding that the moral obligation he cited was not a legally recognised ground for relief under the Family Provision Act. The court's decision underscores the narrow scope of obligations recognised by the Act, which are limited to specific familial relationships. This case serves as a reminder that claims under the Family Provision Act must be closely aligned with the statutory criteria and case law precedents.