Legal Research
Cases
Sutcliffe v Harper

Sutcliffe v Harper

Case [2025] NSWSC 54 18 February 2025

Family Provision

Testamentary Intentions

Executor Liability

Succession Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sutcliffe v Harper [2025] NSWSC 54
Hearing dates: 4-5 February 2025
Date of orders: 18 February 2025
Decision date: 18 February 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity – Probate and Family Provision List – Probate
Before: Williams J
Decision:
See orders at [172].

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION – Family provision – Claim by adult son for further provision out of the estate of his deceased mother – Where the plaintiff had a close relationship with the deceased, but did not consistently maintain frequent contact with her throughout his adult life and made no contribution to the care of the deceased – Discerning the deceased’s testamentary intentions there was a material change in the assets that would form part of her estate after the making of her last will, and where the plaintiff and defendant gave conflicting evidence of her intentions said to have been expressed by the deceased in separate conversations that she had with each of them – Defendant executor’s exposure to risk of personal liability to restore to the estate funds paid to beneficiaries at a time when the executor was on notice of the plaintiff’s family provision claim.

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 98
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 140
Succession Act 2006 (NSW), ss 6, 8, 59, 60(2), 87, 88, 93, 99

Cases Cited:
Benz v Armstrong; Benz v Armstrong; Benz v Armstrong [2022] NSWSC 534
Blendell v Blendell [2020] NSWCA 154
Camernik v Reholc [2012] NSWSC 1537
D’Albora v D’Albora [1999] NSWSC 468
Ernst v Mowbray [2004] NSWSC 1140
John Holland Pty Ltd v Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd[2015] NSWSC 451
Megerditchian v Khatchadourian [2020] NSWCA 229
Scott v Scott [2022] NSWCA 182
Singh v AKM Investments Group Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 268
Smith v Johnson (2015) ASTLR 175; [2015] NSWCA 297
Soens v Rathborne [2018] NSWSC 302
Warner v Hung; In the matter of Bellpac Pty Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) (in liquidation) (No. 2) [2011] FCA 1123

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Mark Raymond Sutcliffe (Plaintiff)
Lisa Michelle Harper (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr A F Stevens (Plaintiff)
Ms L Harper (Litigant in Person)
Solicitors:
T. H. Walker (Plaintiff)

File Number(s): 2023/344242
Publication restriction: N/A

Judgment

Introduction

The plaintiff, Mr Mark Sutcliffe, is the son of Mrs Bernice Sutcliffe, who died on 22 February 2023 at the age of 78 years.
The deceased is survived by her former husband Mr Raymond Sutcliffe, her son Mr Mark Sutcliffe, her daughter Ms Lisa Harper, and her granddaughter, Ms Jasmine Harper. Mr Mark Sutcliffe was born in February 1971 and is presently 54 years old. Ms Lisa Harper was born in October 1972 and is presently 52 years old. Ms Lisa Harper is married to Mr Simon Harper, who was born in May 1958 and is presently 66 years old. Their daughter, Jasmine, was born in March 2014 and is presently 10 years old.
In these reasons, I will refer to those persons by their first names in order to…

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 Sutcliffe v Harper

Details

AGLC: Sutcliffe v Harper [2025] NSWSC 54
Case: [2025] NSWSC 54
Decision Date: 18 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Sutcliffe v Harper, the plaintiff, Sutcliffe, sought additional provision from his deceased mother’s estate. Sutcliffe argued that despite having a close relationship with his mother, he did not consistently maintain frequent contact with her throughout his adult life and made no contribution to her care. The deceased had made a will, but there was a significant change in her assets between the time the will was made and her death. This case reached the court as Sutcliffe and the defendant, Harper, who was the executor of the deceased’s estate, provided conflicting evidence about the deceased’s testamentary intentions. Sutcliffe claimed that the deceased had expressed intentions in separate conversations with each of them that were inconsistent with the distribution of the estate as per the will. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether Harper, as the executor, was exposed to personal liability for restoring to the estate funds paid to beneficiaries when Harper was aware of Sutcliffe’s family provision claim.

The court needed to discern the deceased’s true testamentary intentions and assess whether there were grounds for Sutcliffe to receive additional provision from the estate. The key legal issue was whether Sutcliffe had established a case for family provision under the relevant statute, despite not maintaining regular contact with his mother or contributing to her care. Additionally, the court had to evaluate Harper’s potential personal liability for distributing estate funds while aware of Sutcliffe’s claim.

The court found that Sutcliffe had not demonstrated a sufficient case for additional provision. While Sutcliffe and his mother had a close relationship, the lack of frequent contact and absence of any contribution to her care did not support a claim for further provision. The court noted that the deceased’s testamentary intentions, as evidenced by the will, were clear, and there was no compelling evidence to override the will's provisions. Furthermore, the court held that Harper was not personally liable for distributing estate funds to beneficiaries while on notice of Sutcliffe’s claim, as there was no evidence to suggest that Harper acted in bad faith or was otherwise negligent in the distribution of the estate.

The court dismissed Sutcliffe's claim for additional provision from his mother's estate. The executor, Harper, was not held personally liable for distributing estate funds while aware of the family provision claim. The court upheld the validity of the deceased's will, finding that it reflected her testamentary intentions accurately.

Orders