Slavica Budulica (Also known as Sylvia Budulica) v Stanislav Budulica (Also known as Stan Budulica) (As Executor of the Estate of the late Katica Budulica (Also known as Kaja Budulica and Kata Budulica))

The case of Slavica Budulica (also known as Sylvia Budulica) v Stanislav Budulica (also known as Stan Budulica) (As Executor of the Estate of the late Katica Budulica (also known as Kaja Budulica and Kata Budulica)) involved a dispute over the estate of Katica Budulica. Sylvia, Katica's daughter, sought to extend the time limit for making a family provision claim against her mother's estate, as provided by section 41(8) of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld). Sylvia argued that she was entitled to bring an application for an extension of time due to various circumstances, including her decision not to institute a claim when the time limit was about to expire, which was based on advice from her legal representatives.

The court had to determine whether Sylvia was entitled to bring an application under section 41(8) of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld) for an extension of time to make a claim for family provision. The court considered Sylvia's decision not to institute a claim, her financial situation, her health issues, and the advice she received from her legal representatives. The court found that Sylvia's decision not to institute a claim was made on advice from senior and junior counsel and her solicitor, and that advice was not shown to have been uninformed or plainly wrong. The court also noted Sylvia's poor health and her financial situation, including her reliance on a disability support pension and her limited assets.

After considering the evidence and the arguments presented, the court dismissed Sylvia's application for an extension of time to make a claim for family provision. The court found that Sylvia had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would justify an extension of time. The court also noted the ongoing hostility and strife between Sylvia and her brother, Stan, which did not support the granting of an extension of time. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and Sylvia's claim for family provision was denied.