CITATION: TURNLEY v SWAAB [1999] NSWSC 594 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division FILE NUMBER(S): 4856/97 HEARING DATE(S): 28/05/99 JUDGMENT DATE:
28 May 1999PARTIES :
DONALD HERBERT TURNLEY v FREDERICK SWAAB AND ANORJUDGMENT OF: Master Macready
COUNSEL : J.N. West QC and N.J. Kidd for the plaintiff
L. Ellision for the defendantSOLICITORS: Richard Barron for the plaintiff
Swaab Attorneys for the defendantCATCHWORDS: Family Provision DECISION: Paras 76-78
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISIONMASTER MACREADY
FRIDAY 28 MAY 1999
4856/97 - DONALD HERBERT TURNELY v FREDERICK SWAAB - ESTATE OF GLORIA JARMAN
JUDGMENT1 MASTER: This is an application under the Family Provision Act in respect of the estate of the late Gloria Elvira Jarman who died on 19 July 1995 aged ninety-two years. She was survived by two second cousins and the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that he was in a de facto relationship with the deceased from 1975 until the date of death.
2 The last will of the deceased was made on 28 October 1993 and under that will the deceased appointed two solicitors who were executors and gave a bequest of the residue of the money in her Advance Bank account to her second cousin, Doctor Sandor. She gave her property which is Unit 9, 59 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick, to the trustees to sell it and pay a legacy of $5000 to her other second cousin, Eva Sandor, and the rest of the proceeds of sale to the National Representative of Hungarian Jewish Children to use for the benefit and advancement of sick Hungarian Jewish orphan children. Effectively she gave the rest and residue of the estate to the National Representative of Hungarian Jewish Children.
3 She had, at an earlier time, made another will and that was on 22 May 1990. That will, in effect, gave legacies of $15,000 to Eva Sandor, two other pecuniary legacies of $15,000 and $5000 to people who did not take any part in this case, $5000 to Thomas Sandor and the residue to the same charity.
4 The estate of the deceased at the date of death consisted of Unit 9, 59 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick which in the past has been estimated to have a value of $195,000 although a recent report for the purposes of marketing for sale suggests that it might be in the vicinity of $250,000 to $300,000. There is also a bank account having a sum of $10,387.82 and there was a refund due of a sum of $266.67 and a number of payments worth $6000.
5 There are substantial costs which have been incurred, both in the administration of the estate and in these proceedings. The defendant's costs are estimated at $17,000 and those of the plaintiff are estimated in a similar amount.
6 It is probably useful to deal with a little of the history first. The deceased was born on 21 December 1902 and the plaintiff was born on 28 April 1927. There was thus a twenty-five…
- AGLC
- Turnley v Swaab [1999] NSWSC 594
- Case
- [1999] NSWSC 594
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the deceased had a duty to provide for the applicant, the extent of this duty, and the interpretation of "reasonable financial provision." The court examined the deceased's conduct, including the creation of a trust fund for the applicant and the reasons behind the bequest to the brother. The court also had to balance the statutory provisions with the deceased's testamentary freedom. Ultimately, the court found that the deceased had not made reasonable financial provision for the applicant, noting the applicant's significant financial needs and the deceased's capacity to provide more.
The court reasoned that while the deceased had made some provision for the applicant, it was insufficient given the applicant's financial circumstances and the deceased's wealth. The court emphasised the importance of considering the deceased's overall financial position and the needs of the applicant at the time of the deceased's death. The decision underscored the court's role in ensuring that the statutory intent of the Family Provision Act was upheld. The court ordered that the applicant's share of the estate be increased to provide for her reasonable needs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.