Steinmetz v Shannon

Case [2019] NSWCA 114


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Steinmetz v Shannon [2019] NSWCA 114
Hearing dates: Friday, 15 February 2019
Date of orders: 17 May 2019
Decision date: 17 May 2019
Before: White JA at [1];
Brereton JA at [67];
Simpson AJA at [151]
Decision:

1.  Appeal allowed.

2.  Set aside the orders of the primary judge of 16 July 2018.

3.  In lieu therefore, order that in addition to the provision made for her by clause 6 of the will dated 19 September 2016 of Geoffrey Leslie Steinmetz deceased, but in lieu of the provision made for her by clause 7 thereof, the appellant Gayle Maria Warr Steinmetz receive from the estate of the deceased a legacy of $1,750,000, such legacy not to bear interest if paid within 90 days, but otherwise to bear interest at the rate prescribed for unpaid legacies.

4.  Respondent pay appellant’s costs of the appeal and of the proceedings at first instance.

Catchwords: SUCCESSION – family provision – claim by widow who was second wife – where estate substantial – where will left annuity to widow and balance of estate to children of first marriage – relevance of testamentary freedom – guidelines relating to widows’ claims – annuities – adequate provision for proper maintenance and advancement
Legislation Cited: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 75(2), s 79
Succession Act 2006 (NSW) s 59, s 60, s 80(2)(b)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 75A
Cases Cited: Alexander v Jansson [2010] NSWCA 176
Anderson (deceased), Re (1975) 11 SASR 276
Andrew v Andrew (2012) 81 NSWLR 656; [2012] NSWCA 308
Bladwell v Davis [2004] NSWCA 170
Blore v Lang (1960) 104 CLR 124; [1960] HCA 73
Bowditch v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2012] NSWSC 275
Burke v Burke [2015] NSWCA 195
Chapple v Wilcox (2014) 87 NSWLR 646; [2014] NSWCA 392
Court v Hunt (Supreme Court (NSW), Young J, 29 October 1987, unreported)
DJ Singh v DH Singh [2018] NSWCA 30
Elliott v Elliott (Court of Appeal (NSW), Kirby P, Glass and McHugh JJA, 24 April 1986, unreported)
Elliott v Elliott (Supreme Court (NSW), Powell J, 18 May 1984, unreported)
Ford v Simes [2009] NSWCA 351
Fulop Deceased, Re (1987) 8 NSWLR 679
Gardiner v Gardiner (Supreme Court (NSW), Santow J, 28 May 1998, unreported)
Gargano v Coves [2018] NSWSC 985
Golosky v Golosky [1993] NSWCA 111
Goodman v Windeyer (1980) 144 CLR 490; [1980] HCA 31
Gorton v Parks (1989) 17 NSWLR 1
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Hughes v National Trustees, Executors and Agency Co of Australasia Ltd (1979) 143 CLR 134; [1979] HCA 2
Kearns v Ellis (Court of Appeal (NSW), Glass, Mahoney and McHugh JJA, 5 December 1984, unreported)
Luciano v Rosenblum (1985) 2 NSWLR 65
Madden-Smith v Madden [2012] NSWSC 146
O'Loughlin v O'Loughlin [2003] NSWCA 99
Palmer v Dolman [2005] NSWCA 361
Paton v Public Trustee (Supreme Court (NSW), Young J, 8…

Continue reading Steinmetz v Shannon

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Steinmetz v Shannon [2019] NSWCA 114
Case
[2019] NSWCA 114
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Steinmetz v Shannon* concerned a family provision claim brought by the widow of the deceased, Gayle Maria Warr Steinmetz, against the executors of the estate. The deceased's will provided an annuity for his widow and left the balance of his substantial estate to the children of his first marriage. The dispute centred on whether the provision made for the widow in the will constituted adequate provision for her proper maintenance, advancement, and support.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in their assessment of the adequacy of the provision made for the widow under the terms of the will, and consequently, whether the widow was entitled to further provision from the estate. This involved considering the deceased's testamentary freedom, the specific circumstances of the widow, and established guidelines for assessing claims by second wives.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the provision made for the widow was inadequate. The court reasoned that while testamentary freedom is a significant consideration, it must be balanced against the need to make adequate provision for a surviving spouse. The court considered the widow's age, health, financial position, and the deceased's obligations to her, concluding that the annuity alone did not meet the standard of proper maintenance and advancement. The court therefore set aside the orders of the primary judge and ordered that the widow receive a legacy of $1,750,000 from the estate, in lieu of the annuity provided in the will. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and the proceedings at first instance.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside the orders of the primary judge of 16 July 2018.

3. In lieu therefore, order that in addition to the provision made for her by clause 6 of the will dated 19 September 2016 of Geoffrey Leslie Steinmetz deceased, but in lieu of the provision made for her by clause 7 thereof, the appellant Gayle Maria Warr Steinmetz receive from the estate of the deceased a legacy of $1,750,000, such legacy not to bear interest if paid within 90 days, but otherwise to bear interest at the rate prescribed for unpaid legacies.

4. Respondent pay appellant’s costs of the appeal and of the proceedings at first instance.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.