DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Stojanovska v Stojanovski [2019] QDC 142
PARTIES:
HRISTINA STOJANOVSKA
(applicant)v
LJUBE STOJANOVSKI
(respondent)FILE NO/S:
2106/17
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
21 August 2019
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
20, 21 and 28 June 2019
JUDGE:
Barlow QC DCJ
ORDER:
The proceeding be adjourned for submissions on costs.
CATCHWORDS:
SUCCESSION – FAMILY PROVISION – REQUIREMENT FOR ADEQUATE AND PROPER MAINTENANCE – WHETHER APPLICANT LEFT WITH INSUFFICIENT PROVISION – CLAIMS BY CHILDREN – whether provision is adequate and proper having regard to the totality of the relationship between the applicant and the deceased – the applicant was the daughter of the deceased – the applicant had made a substantial monetary contribution to the value of the deceased’s estate and had cared for the deceased what provision should be made for the applicant
SUCCESSION – ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE –– property of the estate jointly owned by applicant (10%) and deceased (90%) – Applicant had lived in property since deceased’s death – whether applicant liable to contribute an occupation rent to the estate
Legislation
Succession Act 1981 (Qld) ss 35, 36A, 41, sch 2 pt 1
Cases
Biviano v Natoli (1998) 43 NSWLR 695, applied
Bkassini v Sarkis [2017] NSWSC 1487, applied
Callow v Rupchev (2009) 14 BPR 27,533, applied
Coates v National Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd (1956) 95 CLR 494, applied
Collins v Mutton [2012] NSWSC 548, applied
Re Fulop (decd) (1987) 8 NSWLR 679, applied
Hughes v National Trustees, Executors & Agency Co. of Australasia Ltd (1978-1979) 143 CLR 134, applied
Laursen v Laursen [2009] 2 Qd R 148, considered
Perpetual Trustees Queensland Ltd v Mayne [1992] QCA 417, considered
Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201, applied
Re Sinnot [1948] VLR 279, applied
Vigolo v Bostin (2005) 221 CLR 191, applied
W v D (2012) 115 SASR 61, considered
COUNSEL:
MK Conrick for the applicant
AD Stobie for the respondent
GR Dickson for the administrator
SOLICITORS:
Spranklin McCartney Lawyers for the applicant
Burns Law for the respondent
Gleeson Lawyers for the administrator
Introduction
Velika Stojanovska (“Velika”) died intestate on 3 October 2015 at the age of 65. Until a few months before her death, she had been living with her only daughter, Hristina (“Tina”), in a house owned by them both in differing shares. Velika is survived by Tina, Tina’s brother Igor and their father Ljube (Velika’s husband). Velika and Ljube had been separated since late 2010.[1]
[1]As the dispute is between members of the same family, I propose to refer to them by their given names, without meaning disrespect to any of them.
Tina is now applying for adequate provision to be made for her maintenance and support out of Velika’s estate.[2] However, she seeks that Igor’s entitlement be exonerated from any incidence of an order in her favour.[3]
[2]Pursuant to the Succession Act 1991 (Qld), s 41(1).
[3]In the application, Igor’s entitlement…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Stojanovska v Stojanovski and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] QDC 142
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant had been left with adequate and proper maintenance, taking into account the overall relationship with the deceased and the contributions she made to the estate. Additionally, the court had to decide if the applicant should pay occupation rent for the jointly-owned property. The court examined the nature of the applicant’s relationship with the deceased, her financial contributions, and the care provided to him in assessing these claims.
The court found that the applicant had indeed made substantial contributions to the deceased's estate and had cared for him. Considering the totality of their relationship, the court determined that the applicant had not been adequately provided for. Consequently, the court ordered that the estate be adjusted to provide for the applicant’s needs. Regarding the jointly-owned property, the court ruled that the applicant was not liable for occupation rent during the period she lived in the property following the deceased’s death.
The final orders included an adjournment of the proceeding for submissions on costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
The proceeding be adjourned for submissions on costs.
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.