Stanley v State Trustees Ltd - [2012] VSC 24

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

SCI 2011 7109

IN THE MATTER OF PART 4 OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND PROBATE ACT 1958

and

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PAULA LEE CUMMING (DECEASED)

BETWEEN

TERENCE JOHN STANLEY	Plaintiff
and
STATE TRUSTEES LIMITED (WHO IS SUED AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ABOVE NAMED DECEASED)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	KAYE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 February 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 February 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Stanley v State Trustees Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 24

---

TESTATOR’S FAMILY MAINTENANCE – Application for extension of time to bring claim – Former de facto partner of deceased – Plaintiff aware of time limit – Defendant granted plaintiff further time – Plaintiff failing to commence proceedings in extended time – No reasonable explanation for failure – Weak, but not hopeless, prospects of success if application granted – Small estate – Application refused – Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) ss 91, 99.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr G Baker	Nicholas P Byrne
For the Defendant	Mr R Boaden	Legal Department, State Trustees Limited

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application by the plaintiff, pursuant to s 99 of the Administration and Probate Act (“the Act”), for an extension of time to commence proceedings for provision, under s 91 of the Act, from the estate of Paula Lee Cumming (“the deceased”).

Background

The deceased died intestate on 16 August 2010. Letters of administration to her estate were granted to the defendant, State Trustees, on 14 January 2011. The application in this case is brought by originating motion issued on 29 December 2011. Section 99 of the Act provides that no application, under Part 4 of the Act, shall be heard by the Court, unless the application is made within six months after the date of the grant of letters of administration. The section further provides that the time for making an application may be extended for a further period by the Court as the Court thinks necessary.

At the date of her death, the deceased was 59 years of age. She left an estate, which was valued for probate purposes at $273,000. It comprised $267,232 in bank accounts, a motor vehicle worth $3,000, and other personal chattels valued at $2,352. There are seven next of kin of the deceased, namely, five nephews and nieces, and two uncles, who are each entitled to participate in the distribution of the estate. In addition, in proceeding no. 5462 of 2011, Richard John Osborn (“Osborn”) has claimed provision from the estate for his maintenance and support under Part 4 of the Act. According to Osborn’s affidavit, the deceased and he met in July 2009, and they commenced living together in a domestic relationship in March 2010.

The plaintiff is 67 years of age. From August 1997 he lived in a de facto relationship with the deceased for a period of ten years. According…

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 Stanley v State Trustees Ltd

Details

AGLC: Stanley v State Trustees Ltd [2012] VSC 24
Case: [2012] VSC 24
Decision Date: 8 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Stanley v State Trustees Ltd, the plaintiff sought an extension of time to bring a claim under the Testator’s Family Maintenance Act, contesting the terms of the deceased’s will. The defendant, State Trustees Ltd, had previously granted the plaintiff an extension of time to commence proceedings, but the plaintiff did not initiate the action within the new period. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issue was whether the court should grant the plaintiff an extension of time to bring the claim, despite the plaintiff’s failure to meet the previously granted extended time limit.

The court considered the plaintiff's awareness of the original time limit and the circumstances surrounding the extension granted by the defendant. The plaintiff provided a weak explanation for the failure to meet the extended time limit, and the prospects of success, though not hopeless, were not strong. Additionally, the estate was small, which the court noted in its deliberations. The court found that the plaintiff had not provided a reasonable explanation for the delay and that the prospects of success, while not entirely without merit, were not compelling enough to warrant an extension. The court ruled against granting the extension, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory time limits in such matters.

The court's reasoning focused on the statutory framework provided by the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic), particularly sections 91 and 99, which govern the timing of claims against estates. The court held that the failure to commence proceedings within the extended period, without a reasonable explanation, justified the refusal of the application. The court concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to grant a further extension. The final orders of the court were that the application for an extension of time to bring the claim was dismissed.

Orders