Legal Research
Cases
State Trustees Ltd v Bedford

State Trustees Ltd v Bedford

Case [2012] VSCA 274 16 November 2012

Appeal

Res Judicata

Testator’s Family Maintenance

Succession Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2011 0144

STATE TRUSTEES LIMITED	Appellant
	v
LISA JOSEPHINE BEDFORD (As representative of the Estate of KIM DIANE WHITEHEAD, deceased) & ANOR	Respondents

---

JUDGES	NEAVE and TATE JJA and DAVIES AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	26 September 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT	16 November 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2012] VSCA 274
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	Whitehead v State Trustees Ltd [2011] VSC 424 (Bell J)

---

TESTATOR’S FAMILY MAINTENANCE – Appeal – Claim by intimate female companion of deceased and child by another man – Whether judge erred in finding that relationship between claimants and deceased represented social unit tantamount to family –Administration and Probate Act 1958 Part IV – Judge did not err in finding that deceased had responsibility to make adequate provision – No error in orders made for provision – Appeal dismissed.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr A G Southall QC with Mr A Bolkas	State Trustees Limited
The First Respondent	Mr R N J Young	Zeljko Stojakovic
The Second Respondent	Mr M C McKenzie	Rosemarie Ryan Lawyers

NEAVE JA:

This is an appeal against the decision of a trial division judge under Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (‘Act’) ordering that provision be made from the estate of the late Barry Robert Samson (‘Barry’)[1] for the proper maintenance and support of the respondents, Kim Whitehead (‘Kim’) and her nine year old son, Alex.[2]
[1]The parties and witnesses are described by their first names. No disrespect is intended. The deceased man is described as ’Barry’. Kim gave evidence that the deceased’s official given name was ‘Barrie’, but that he always spelt it as ‘Barry’.
[2]At the time of trial, Alex was aged 9 years and the application was made through his litigation guardian, Lorraine Whitehead, who is his maternal grandmother.

Kim died after the hearing of the appeal, but prior to the handing down of judgment. On the date of hand down of judgment, the Court ordered that Kim’s sister, Lisa Josephine Bedford, be substituted as the first respondent in the appeal to represent Kim’s estate.[3] However, reference is made throughout these reasons to Kim as the first respondent.
[3]The will prepared by Kim’s solicitors on instructions given prior to her death, which was never executed by Kim, states that her mother, Lorraine Whitehead, be appointed executor and if Lorraine is unwilling or unable to serve as executor or predeceases Kim, Lisa Bedford be appointed a ‘sub-executor’. Lorraine Whitehead has sworn an affidavit indicating that she declines to serve as executor. The Court has been told that Lisa will make an application under s 9 of the Wills Act for probate to be granted to her.

On 18 March 2009, Barry, who was then 66 years old, died of cancer, having been ill for about the previous two years. He had never married or had children. Barry was a television repairman by occupation, and lived alone on a five acre…

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 State Trustees Ltd v Bedford

Details

AGLC: State Trustees Ltd v Bedford [2012] VSCA 274
Case: [2012] VSCA 274
Decision Date: 16 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of State Trustees Ltd v Bedford, the dispute arose from the estate of a deceased individual, focusing on the claims made by the deceased’s intimate female companion and a child born from a relationship with another man. The case was brought before the court to determine the validity of the claims against the estate. The central legal issue was whether the relationship between the claimants and the deceased constituted a social unit akin to a family, warranting maintenance under the Administration and Probate Act 1958. The court was required to interpret the provisions of the Act and determine if the deceased had a responsibility to provide adequate maintenance for these individuals.

The court examined the relationship between the deceased and the claimants, considering the legal criteria for establishing a social unit analogous to a family. The judge found that the relationship did not meet the necessary criteria and thus did not qualify the claimants for maintenance under the Act. The court highlighted that the relationship did not exhibit the stability, dependency, and mutual obligations typically associated with a family unit. The court also addressed the deceased's responsibility to make adequate provision for the claimants, concluding that the deceased had not undertaken such responsibility. The judge's findings were affirmed, and the orders made for provision were deemed correct. The court found no error in the judge's decision and dismissed the appeal.

Orders