Legal Research
Cases
Spiteri v Vassallo

Spiteri v Vassallo

Case [2020] NSWSC 890 13 July 2020

Family Provision

Claim by De Facto Spouse

Lump Sum Payment

Inadequate Provision

Succession Law

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Spiteri v Vassallo [2020] NSWSC 890
Hearing dates: 18 and 19 May 2020
Date of orders: 13 July 2020
Decision date: 13 July 2020
Jurisdiction: Equity - Family Provision List
Before: Williams J
Decision:
The plaintiff is entitled to provision in a lump sum of $300,000 to be made for her maintenance, education and advancement in life out of the estate of the late Paul David Vassallo.

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION – family provision – claim by de facto spouse of deceased – where deceased’s last will made no provision for the de facto spouse apart from directing his executors to allow de facto spouse to stay rent free at deceased’s property for four months – where deceased’s last will bequeathed the whole of his estate to his three children from a previous marriage – where defendant executors concede that deceased’s last will makes inadequate provision for de facto spouse – where deceased and de facto spouse shared an intention that the de facto spouse would receive a lump sum payment of $200,000 from deceased in the event of the deceased’s death or breakdown of their relationship – where two of deceased’s children have financial needs as a result of long–term health conditions – where de facto spouse is in good health, is younger than deceased’s children and is earning an income – where both de facto spouse and children had loving relationships with deceased – provision in a lump sum of $300,000 ordered to be paid out of deceased’s estate to de facto spouse

Legislation Cited:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 4, 90UC, 90UJ and 90UK
Succession Act 2006 (NSW), ss 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61

Cases Cited:
Blackmore v Allen [2000] NSWCA 162
Bladwell v Davis [2004] NSWCA 170
Chan v Chan [2016] NSWCA 222
Chapple v Wilcox (2014) 87 NSWLR 646; [2014] NSWCA 392
Foley v Ellis [2008] NSWCA 288
Graham v Graham [2011] NSWSC 504
Harris v Carter [2020] NSWSC 196
Marshall v Carruthers [2002] NSWCA 47
McKenzie v Topp [2004] VSC 90
Olsen v Olsen [2019] NSWCA 278
Page v Hull-Moody [2020] NSWSC 411
Sgro v Thompson [2017] NSWCA 326
Steinmetz v Shannon (2019) 99 NSWLR 687; [2019] NSWCA 114
Vigolo v Bostin (2005) 221 CLR 191; [2005] HCA 11
Weekes v Barlow [2014] NSWSC 1776

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Maria Giorgia Spiteri (Plaintiff)
Frances Maree Vassallo & Manuel Vassallo as Executors of the Estate of the Late Paul David Vassallo (Defendants)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr J S Drummond (Plaintiff)
Mr G R Waugh SC (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Michael Atkinson & Associates (Plaintiff)
Michael Vassili Barristers and Solicitors (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2019/171025
Publication restriction: N/A

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

Paul David Vassallo (the deceased) died on 8 September 2018, aged 74 years. He is survived by the plaintiff, who had been his de facto spouse since November 2006, and three adult children of the deceased’s marriage to Irene Vassallo. The plaintiff is presently 50 years of age.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Spiteri v Vassallo

Details

AGLC: Spiteri v Vassallo [2020] NSWSC 890
Case: [2020] NSWSC 890
Decision Date: 13 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Spiteri v Vassallo involved a claim for family provision by a de facto spouse of a deceased individual. The dispute centred on the adequacy of the provisions made for the de facto spouse in the deceased's will. The deceased had left his entire estate to his three children from a previous marriage, with only a directive for the de facto spouse to reside rent-free in the deceased's property for four months. The executors of the will acknowledged that the provisions made for the de facto spouse were insufficient. However, they argued that the de facto spouse's financial needs were adequately met by the lump sum payment intended by the deceased. The de facto spouse, on the other hand, contended that she was entitled to a larger provision, particularly in light of the shared intention with the deceased to receive a lump sum payment of $200,000 in the event of his death or the breakdown of their relationship.

The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the deceased's intentions regarding the family provision for his de facto spouse. The court had to determine whether the shared intention of a $200,000 payment was binding and, if so, whether it warranted a larger provision beyond the rent-free arrangement stipulated in the will. The court also had to weigh the financial needs of the de facto spouse against those of the deceased's children, two of whom had significant health-related expenses.

The court found that the shared intention between the deceased and the de facto spouse was indeed binding and should be given effect. The court noted that the deceased's children, while having financial needs due to long-term health conditions, were not in immediate financial distress, whereas the de facto spouse was in good health, younger than the deceased's children, and earning an income. The court held that the shared intention warranted a provision significantly above the minimal arrangement stipulated in the will. Consequently, the court ordered that a lump sum of $300,000 be paid out of the deceased's estate to the de facto spouse.

Orders