Legal Research
Cases
Vella v Vella; Vella v Vella

Vella v Vella; Vella v Vella

Case [2020] NSWSC 849 2 July 2020

Family Provision

Residuary Legatee

Permanent Intellectual Disability

Estimating Future Needs

Competing Claims

Close Relationship

Succession Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Vella v Vella; Vella v Vella [2020] NSWSC 849
Hearing dates: 22, 23 and 24 April 2020
Date of orders: 2 July 2020
Decision date: 02 July 2020
Jurisdiction: Equity - Family Provision List
Before: Williams J
Decision:
In proceeding 2018/385260, the plaintiff is entitled to provision in a lump sum of $150,000 for her maintenance, education and advancement in life out of the estate of the late Laura Anna Delores Vella, in lieu of the provision of $2,000 made in the last will of the late Laura Anna Delores Vella dated 11 December 2017.
In proceeding 2018/385260, the plaintiff’s application for provision out of the estate of the late Laura Anna Delores Vella is dismissed.

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION – family provision – claim by adult child of the deceased for provision out of the deceased’s estate – where deceased’s last will left to the adult child some clothing and a legacy in the sum of $2,000 – where residue of the deceased’s estate bequeathed to the defendant – where adult child suffers from permanent intellectual disability – where adult child is retired and is not capable of independent living – where adult child presently entitled to disability income – where disability pension only just sufficient to cover her accommodation and other living expenses – where defendant accepts that adult child is entitled to further provision out of the deceased’s estate – where estimating future needs of the adult child’s care is imprecise – further provision ordered to be paid out of the deceased’s estate in the sum of $150,000
SUCCESSION – family provision – claim by adult child of the deceased for provision out of deceased’s estate – where deceased’s last will left to the adult child a legacy in the amount of $1,000 – where residue of the deceased’s estate bequeathed to the defendant – where relationship between adult child and deceased was not close and at times estranged – where assets held jointly by adult child and his partner greatly exceed the value of the deceased’s estate – where adult child made only modest contributions to the welfare of the deceased during her lifetime – where there is a strong competing claim by other adult child – where the deceased enjoyed a strong and close relationship with defendant prior to her death – family provision claim dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth), Sch 1 and s 41–3
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 77
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth), s 29
NSW Trustee and Guardianship Act 2009 (NSW)
Practice Note SC Eq 7, cl 21
Succession Act 2006 (NSW), ss 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61

Cases Cited:
Amos v Hogg [2018] NSWSC 1226
Blendell v Byrne [2019] NSWSC 583
Bowditch v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2012] NSWSC 275
Chan v Chan [2016] NSWCA 222
Chapple v Wilcox (2014) 87 NSWLR 646; [2014] NSWCA 392
Foley v Ellis [2008] NSWCA 288
Grant v Roberts; Smith…

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 Vella v Vella; Vella v Vella

Details

AGLC: Vella v Vella; Vella v Vella [2020] NSWSC 849
Case: [2020] NSWSC 849
Decision Date: 02 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vella v Vella is a case that deals with a family provision claim brought by an adult child against the executor of their deceased parent's estate. The deceased left a will that bequeathed a small monetary sum and some clothing to the claimant, with the residue of the estate going to the defendant. The claimant, who suffers from a permanent intellectual disability and relies on a disability pension to cover basic living expenses, argued that they needed further financial provision from the estate to meet their future care needs. The defendant acknowledged that the claimant was entitled to additional provision but argued that the exact amount was difficult to determine.

The court had to decide whether the claimant was entitled to additional provision from the estate and, if so, the appropriate amount. The legal issues centred on whether the claimant had made a 'reasonable provision' for the claimant's needs and whether the claimant had made a 'reasonable financial provision' for them. The court considered the relationship between the claimant and the deceased, the claimant's financial situation, and the value of the estate. The court also had to weigh the competing claims of other beneficiaries against the claimant's needs.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the claimant was indeed entitled to further provision from the estate but considered the imprecise nature of estimating future care needs. The court took into account the claimant's disability, their reliance on disability support, and the modest contributions they made to the deceased during her lifetime. The court also noted the strong relationship between the deceased and the defendant. In the first Vella v Vella case, the court ordered that $150,000 be paid to the claimant from the estate. In the second Vella v Vella case, the court dismissed the family provision claim, considering the competing claims of other beneficiaries and the closer relationship between the deceased and the defendant.

Orders