Stone v Stone

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the plaintiff, Ms Stone, sought relief under the Family Provision Act 1964, challenging the distribution of her late father's estate. The deceased had left his estate to his third wife absolutely, leaving the plaintiff, an adult daughter from his second marriage, without any provision. The plaintiff claimed she was in clear and obvious need and that her father had failed to meet his obligations during his lifetime. The primary issue for the court was whether the application should be allowed despite being out of time and if the plaintiff was left with inadequate provision. The court also needed to determine whether the defendant had special circumstances that justified the extension of time and whether a family provision order or a designating order should be made.

The court examined the statutory framework for family provision applications, emphasising the discretion afforded to the court under section 13 of the Family Provision Act 1964. It considered the principle that time limits should be strictly enforced unless there were special circumstances warranting an extension. The court assessed the evidence of the plaintiff's need, the deceased's financial obligations, and the circumstances surrounding the out-of-time application. The court found that while the plaintiff demonstrated a clear and obvious need, the defendant's representations and subsequent actions regarding the extension of time were significant. Ultimately, the court concluded that the application should not be allowed due to the absence of special circumstances justifying an extension of time.

The court held that it would not extend the time for the application, as the plaintiff had not established special circumstances. Consequently, the plaintiff was not left with inadequate provision for her reasonable maintenance, as the court found that the deceased had made adequate provision for her. The court did not find it necessary to make a designating order or a family provision order, as the application was dismissed. The final orders included a declaration that the application for family provision was dismissed and that the estate distribution as per the will would stand.