Stojanovski v Stojanovski

The case of Stojanovski v Stojanovski involved a dispute over the enforceability of a testamentary agreement and the making of family provision claims under the Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW). The plaintiff, as an adult child, sought an order for specific performance of the agreement and to have the agreement binding, while also requesting family provision from the deceased's estate. The defendants included the estate and other family members who contested the plaintiff's claims. The primary issues before the court were the enforceability of the testamentary agreement, the plaintiff's standing to bring the claim, and whether the plaintiff had made sufficient cause to extend the time for making the claim. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff had been provided with adequate and proper provision from the deceased's estate.

The court accepted the plaintiff's standing to represent the estate for the purposes of the claim under UCPR r 7.10(2)(b) and also allowed the fourth defendant to resist the claim on grounds of procedural fairness and natural justice. The court found that the testamentary agreement was enforceable, binding the parties to its terms, and that the plaintiff was entitled to have it specifically performed. In terms of the family provision claim, the court considered the extensive litigation and the significant legal costs incurred. It found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated sufficient cause for extending the time to bring the claim and that the plaintiff's own actions had contributed to the failure of the deed of release. The court also noted that the beneficiaries were in materially similar circumstances and that the plaintiff had altered their claims substantially over time. Consequently, the court ruled that no family provision was ordered.

In summary, the court upheld the enforceability of the testamentary agreement, permitted the plaintiff to bring the claim on behalf of the estate, and rejected the plaintiff's application for family provision, primarily due to the extensive litigation, the plaintiff's own actions contributing to the failure of the deed of release, and the lack of demonstrated need for family provision given the similar circumstances of the beneficiaries.