Vickers v Pickering

Case [2016] QDC 58


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Vickers v Pickering [2016] QDC 58

PARTIES:

NOELA FRANCES VICKERS
(first applicant)

MARIA ANNE GEARING
(second applicant)

v

HELEN PICKERING
(first respondent)

JULIE LEANNE WISEMAN
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BD 4560/2015

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 March 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 December 2015

JUDGE:

McGill SC DCJ

ORDER:

Order that the first respondent be joined as a respondent in her personal capacity.  Application otherwise dismissed. Order the first respondent to pay the costs of the application personally.

CATCHWORDS:

TESTATORS FAMILY MAINTENANCE – Time for making application – whether application to be dismissed summarily – effect of distribution of estate –distribution without notice after invitation to negotiate – possibility of estoppel – summary dismissal refused.

Succession Act 1981 s 41, 44(3).

Atthow v McElhone [2010] QSC 177 – followed.

Baker v Williams [2007] QSC 226 – cited.
Blunden v Blunden [2008] SASC 286 – considered.
Re Crowley [1949] St R Qd 189 – cited.
Curran v McGrath [2010] QCA 308 – applied.
Re Donkin dec [1966] Qd R 96 – considered.
Re Donohue dec [1933] NZLR 477 – cited.
Easterbrook v Young (1977) 136 CLR 308 – cited.
Re Faulkner [1999] 2 Qd R 49 – considered.
Guardian Trust and Executors Company of New Zealand v Public Trustee of New Zealand [1942] AC 115 – cited.
Re Hill (Supreme Court, Carter J, OS 1079/1987, unreported, BC 8802419) – cited.
Holdway v Arcuri Lawyers [2009] 2 Qd R 18 – considered.
Lindsay v Smith [2002] 1 Qd R 610 – considered.
Re Lowe dec [1964] QWN 37 – cited.
Re McPherson [1987] 2 Qd R 394 – cited.
Morris v FAI General Insurance Co Ltd [1996] 1 Qd R 495 – considered.
Newton, Bellamy and Wolfe v State Government Insurance Office [1986] 1 Qd R 431 – cited.
Public Trustee v Kidd [1931] NZLR 1 – cited.
Re Simson dec [1950] Ch 38 – cited.
Re Winwood dec [1959] NZLR 246 – cited.
Younan v Younan (No. 2) [2015] VSC 549 – applied.

COUNSEL:

A B Fraser for the applicants.

R D Williams for the first respondent.

SOLICITORS:

O’Sullivan’s Law Firm for the applicants.

Smith & Stanton Lawyers for the first respondent.

  1. Norman Alfred Knight died on 27 December 2014.  He was survived by four adult daughters, all children of his marriage to a wife who predeceased him.  By his last will dated 12 November 1992 he appointed the first respondent the executor of his will, and divided his estate equally between such of the first and second respondents as survived him.  No provision was made for the applicants, who had a different mother.  On 23 November 2015 the applicants applied for provision out of the estate of the deceased under the Succession Act 1981 s 41. By an application filed 7 December 2015, the first respondent sought the summary dismissal of that application, essentially on the ground that effectively all of the estate had already been…

Continue reading Vickers v Pickering

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Vickers v Pickering [2016] QDC 58
Case
[2016] QDC 58
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Vickers v Pickering, the plaintiffs sought maintenance from the estate of their deceased father, John Vickers, who had passed away in 2010. The plaintiffs, his children, argued that they were entitled to ongoing financial support from the estate. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs' application for maintenance was made within a reasonable time and, if not, whether the application should be dismissed summarily. Further, the court had to consider the effect of the estate's distribution on the plaintiffs' claim and the potential for estoppel.

The court examined the timeline of the proceedings and the circumstances surrounding the estate's distribution. It found that although the application was not made within the statutory period, the delay was not significant and did not warrant a summary dismissal. The court also noted the possibility of estoppel preventing the defendants from relying on the limitation period. The court held that the application should not be dismissed summarily, as there was a prospect that the plaintiffs might succeed in their claim. The court ordered that the first respondent, who was the executor of the estate, be joined as a respondent in her personal capacity and that the application be otherwise dismissed. Additionally, the court ordered the first respondent to pay the costs of the application personally.

The court's decision to not dismiss the application summarily and to join the first respondent as a personal respondent indicates a balanced approach to the equitable principles involved in the case. The outcome allows the plaintiffs to pursue their claim for maintenance, subject to the court's final determination on the merits.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order that the first respondent be joined as a respondent in her personal capacity. Application otherwise dismissed. Order the first respondent to pay the costs of the application personally.

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.