Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Scott v Scott [2022] NSWCA 182 Hearing dates: 23 August 2022 Date of orders: 20 September 2022 Decision date: 20 September 2022 Before: Ward P at [1];
Meagher JA at [2];
Kirk JA at [91]Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Catchwords: SUCCESSION – family provision – claim by adult daughter for provision pursuant to Succession Act 2006 (NSW), s 59 – where deceased’s 2019 will left family home to appellant daughter and small legacy to respondent daughter – where testamentary statement purported to justify 2019 will – where primary judge found will and statement obtained by process of manipulation and sourced to appellant – where earlier will of deceased leaving one-third of estate to each child found to reflect deceased’s fair and considered testamentary judgment – whether primary judge erred in being satisfied that 2019 will did not make adequate provision for respondent’s proper advancement
Legislation Cited: Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW), s 9(2)
Succession Act 2006 (NSW), ss 59(1)(c), 59(2), 60(2)
Cases Cited: Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [1983] 1 NSWLR 1
Bassett v Bassett [2021] NSWCA 320
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
DJ Singh v DH Singh [2018] NSWCA 30
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services (2011) 243 CLR 361; [2011] HCA 11
Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith v Scales (1962) 107 CLR 9; [1962] HCA 19
Sgro v Thompson [2017] NSWCA 326
Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201; [1994] HCA 40
Slack v Rogan; Palffy v Rogan (2013) 85 NSWLR 253; [2013] NSWSC 522
Taylor v Farrugia [2009] NSWSC 801
Vigolo v Bostin (2005) 221 CLR 191; [2005] HCA 11
Vukic v Luca Grbin; Estate of ZvonkoGrbin [2006] NSWSC 41
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Charlene Arnel Scott (Appellant)
Coralynne April Scott (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
R Wilson SC with L Clarke (Appellant)
Dr C Birch SC with AF Stevens (Respondent)Solicitors:
Ray Wehbe & Co (Appellant)
Dignan & Hanrahan (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/369585 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Equity
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 13 December 2021
- Before:
- Parker J
- File Number(s):
- 2020/215861
HEADNOTE
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
The appellant (Charlene) and respondent (Coralynne) are adult sisters, with one brother (Clifton Jnr). Their mother died in July 2019. By her will dated 16 May 2019, the deceased left the family home in Fairfield to Charlene and gifts of $40,000 to each of Coralynne and Clifton Jnr, with the residue to be divided equally between the three children. The deceased had taken her interest in the Fairfield property upon the death of her husband in 2016,…
Continue reading Scott v Scott
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Scott v Scott [2022] NSWCA 182
- Case
- [2022] NSWCA 182
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge erred in being satisfied that the 2019 will did not make adequate provision for the respondent's proper advancement in life. This required the court to consider whether the primary judge's findings regarding the undue influence and manipulation surrounding the 2019 will were correct, and if so, whether the earlier will, which reflected a more equitable distribution, represented the deceased's true and considered testamentary intentions.
The Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's findings. Their Honours reasoned that the evidence strongly supported the conclusion that the 2019 will and the accompanying statement were not the result of the deceased's free will but were procured through the appellant's manipulation. The earlier will, which provided for an equal distribution, was considered to be a more reliable reflection of the deceased's considered testamentary judgment. Consequently, the court found that the 2019 will did not make adequate provision for the respondent's proper advancement.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs.
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.