SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Sellars v Maeyke [2005] QSC 368 PARTIES: MAUREEN SELLARS
(applicant)
v
ANNETTE GAYE MAEYKE as personal representative
of the estate of Donald Stanley Sellars Deceased
(respondent)FILE NO/S: BS 7950/05 DIVISION: Trial PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING
COURT:Supreme Court at Brisbane DELIVERED ON: 14 December 2005 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 23 November 2005 JUDGE: White J ORDER: Directions made as per draft CATCHWORDS: SUCCESSION – FAMILY PROVISION AND MAINTENANCE – FAILURE BY TESTATOR TO MAKE SUFFICIENT PROVISION FOR APPLICANT – WHETHER APPLICANT LEFT WITH INSUFFICIENT PROVISION – CLAIMS BY SPOUSE – claim by widow – whether prima facie case – where lack of particularity in information provided by the applicant about the applicant’s assets and the estate’s assets Practice Direction No 8 of 2001 Succession Act 1981 (Qld), s 41 Bladwell v Davis [2004] NSWCA 170, 4 June 2004, cited Golosky v Golosky NSWCA, 5 October 1993, unreported, cited Higgins v Higgins [2005] QSC 110 (6 May 2005), cited
Permanent Trustee Co Ltd v Fraser (1995) 36 NSWLR 25,
cited
White v Barron (1979) 144 CLR 431, citedCOUNSEL: Mr P Lane for the applicant
Mr T Matthews for the respondent/executrixSOLICITORS: Hunt & Hunt for the applicant
M A Kent & Associates for the respondent
The applicant seeks adequate provision for her proper maintenance and support from the estate of her late husband Donald Stanley Sellars who died on 25 December 2004 aged 75 years. The applicant is the second wife of the testator. He married his first wife in 1952 and was divorced from her in 1979. From that marriage there were four children, the eldest, Roslyn, was born in 1954 and died in 1997. The other children are Annette Maeyke, respondent to this application as executrix of her father’s will, now aged 50, Susan Edwards now aged 47 and Robert Sellars now aged 41 years.
As can best be ascertained from the applicant’s affidavits she and the testator commenced an intimate relationship in the 1980’s. The applicant had known him for some years previously. The applicant spent weekends with the testator at his property at Pine Mountain near Ipswich. She moved there permanently in 1992 and on 28 April 1996 they married. She was born on 21 April 1933 and is now aged 72 years.
By his will dated 19 September 2001 the testator appointed the applicant and his daughter Annette as executrices and trustees of his will. They have not applied for probate.
The testator bequeathed the sum of $10,000, any motor car of which he was possessed at death and any shares and listed property trust investments which he possessed at death to the applicant. He left the remainder of his estate to be divided equally between his three surviving children subject to a right of residence at his property at Pine Mountain to the applicant.
That property is semi-rural and of some 82 acres comprising a house, shed and cattle yards with boundary and internal fencing…
Continue reading Sellars v Maeyke
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Sellars v Maeyke [2005] QSC 368
- Case
- [2005] QSC 368
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the information provided by Sellars regarding her assets and the estate’s assets, finding that it lacked particularity. This lack of detail hindered the court’s ability to assess whether Sellars had indeed been left with insufficient provision. The court noted that, for a claim of family provision to be successful, the applicant must demonstrate that the deceased's will did not make reasonable financial provision for them. Furthermore, the court considered whether the information provided was sufficient to establish a prima facie case, a crucial step in determining whether the application should proceed to a full hearing. Given the deficiencies in the information provided, the court was unable to make a definitive finding on the merits of the application at that stage.
The court directed that further particulars be provided by Sellars regarding her assets and the estate’s assets. This direction was made to allow the court to properly assess whether a prima facie case existed and to determine whether the application should proceed to a full hearing. The orders made included specific directions for the applicant to provide more detailed information within a specified timeframe, allowing the court to make an informed decision on the application’s merits.
Orders
Orders of the court
Directions made as per draft
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.