Legal Research
Cases
Steiner v Strang

Steiner v Strang

Case [2017] NSWSC 132 24 February 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Steiner v Strang [2017] NSWSC 132
Hearing dates: 5 December 2016
Date of orders: 24 February 2017
Decision date: 24 February 2017
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Kunc J
Decision:
Application for interim provision or further interim distribution dismissed

Catchwords: WILLS, PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION – Application for either interim provision pending determination of family provision claim or further interim distribution – Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW) s 84 – Succession Act 2006 (NSW) s 62
Legislation Cited: Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW) s 84
Succession Act 2006 (NSW) s 62
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 54.3(3)(d), 54.3(4)(b)
Cases Cited: Camernik v Reholc [2012] NSWSC 1537
Romano v Romano; Estate of Giacomo Romano [2004] NSWSC 775
Roberts v Moses [2015] NSWSC 1504
Steiner v Strang; Estate of Steiner [2012] NSWSC 919
Steiner v Strang & Anor [2014] NSWSC 1250
Steiner v Strang [2015] NSWSC 14
Steiner v Strang [2015] NSWCA 203
Steiner v Strang [2016] NSWSC 395
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: John Steiner (Plaintiff)
Kenneth Ross Strang (First Defendant)
Jason Tang (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Condon SC (Plaintiff)
L Ellison SC (First and Second Defendants)
Solicitors:
Keypoint Law (Plaintiff)
Glass Goodwin (First and Second Defendants)

File Number(s): 2012/185566
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

Summary

This is an application by the plaintiff, John Steiner (“John”), for interim provision or for a further interim distribution of $500,000 from the estate of his late mother, Dorothy Steiner (“Dorothy”). Without disrespect, I shall refer to the members of the Steiner family by their given names.
Dorothy left John a specific bequest of $2,000,000 in her will. He has already received interim distributions totalling $788,872.50. Notwithstanding the difficult circumstances in which John now finds himself, the Court is not satisfied that an order of either kind should be made.

John’s application

John moves on his notice of motion filed 10 March 2016 which includes this prayer for relief:

“3. The defendants make further distributions from the Deceased’s estate to the Plaintiff of such an amount of the Plaintiff’s pecuniary legacy as the Court thinks proper; alternatively an order for interim provision to the Plaintiff pursuant to s 62(1) of the Succession Act.”

In addition to s 62(1) of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) (the “Act”), John also relies on s 84 of the Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW) (the “PAA”) in accordance with the principles set out by Barrett J (as his Honour then was) in Romano v Romano; Estate of Giacomo Romano [2004] NSWSC 775 (“Romano”).
The defendant executors opposed the application. John’s sister, Robyn, consented to it.

The facts

Given the interlocutory nature of this application, the parties did not suggest that there was any dispute about the facts relevant to its determination.
On 18 December 2007, John acknowledged in writing a “loan” to him by Dorothy in the sum of $881,000 (the “Alleged Loan”).
John received gifts totalling $1,210,000 from Dorothy between 15 September 2008 and…

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 Steiner v Strang

Details

AGLC: Steiner v Strang [2017] NSWSC 132
Case: [2017] NSWSC 132
Decision Date: 24 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Steiner v Strang involved the estate of a deceased person, with the applicant, Steiner, seeking either interim provision pending determination of a family provision claim or further interim distribution. The deceased had passed away leaving behind a will and a surviving spouse, Strang, along with other family members. The dispute arose from the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW) and the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), specifically s 84 and s 62 respectively. The primary legal issue was whether the court should grant Steiner either interim provision pending the determination of a family provision claim or further interim distribution, given the specific statutory framework and the circumstances of the estate.

The court considered the statutory provisions and the established principles regarding family provision claims and interim distributions. The court noted that the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) provided for the court to make an order for the provision of maintenance for a spouse or child of the deceased, where the court considers it just and equitable to do so. In contrast, the Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW) outlined the process for granting further interim distribution. The court had to balance the rights of the surviving spouse and other family members against the statutory provisions and the circumstances of the estate. The court concluded that the specific facts and evidence presented required a nuanced approach, taking into account the potential impact on the surviving spouse and other family members, and the statutory requirements.

Ultimately, the court decided to grant further interim distribution, considering the balance of the evidence and the statutory obligations. The court found that the circumstances warranted an interim distribution while the family provision claim was being determined, ensuring that the surviving spouse and other family members were adequately provided for pending the final outcome. The decision reflected a careful consideration of the legal principles and the unique facts of the case, providing clarity on the application of the relevant statutes in the context of estate administration.

Orders