Webb v Ryan - [2011] VSC 461

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

COMMERCIAL LIST

S CI 2010 6966

GRAEME COOPER WEBB and Ors	Plaintiffs
v
MICHAEL RYAN and TRAVIS NORTH	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	ZAMMIT AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 September 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 September 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Webb and Ors v Ryan and Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 461

---

ADMINISTRATION OF PROBATE – Testator’s family maintenance – Deceased widower, with no children and dependents – Claim by testator’s family friends and business partners – Close relationship between some of the plaintiffs and deceased akin to parent and child – Whether deceased therefore had responsibility to make provision – Whether claims have “no real prospect of success” – Whether appropriate for summary dismissal – s 91 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) – ss 63 and 64 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic), order 23.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr A Verspaandonk	Thomas Egan Barrister and Solicitor
For the Defendants	Mr G Devries	Mahons Yuncken and Yuncken

HER HONOUR:

This is an application for summary judgment by the executors of a deceased estate against whom an application has been made for testator’s family maintenance under the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) (“the Act”).

Daniel North died a widower on 30 January 2010, aged 64. His wife Kathleen died on 11 June 2007. They had no children.

Mr North made his last will on 20 January 2010. The estate is currently valued at $900,000. The executors are his nephews. The will divides the entire estate equally between 14 nieces and nephews of the deceased and his late wife.

The six plaintiffs are Graeme Cooper Webb, his wife Valda May Webb and their four adult children, Melissa May Webb, Jason Cooper Webb, Matthew Alexander Webb and Rene Elizabeth Webb (“the Webb children”).

The Webbs are not related by blood to the Norths. The parties agree that there was a longstanding friendship between the plaintiffs and the Norths as well as a longstanding business relationship. The plaintiffs submit that the relationship was more than this.

The defendants bring a summary judgment application against the Webbs pursuant to s 62 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) (“CPA”) and r 23.01(1) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic).

The defendants submit that the Webb claims fall “way outside” even the extreme margin of relationships which might, under the relevant statutory provisions of the Act, establish a responsibility for the deceased to make provision. The defendants submit that there is no reasonable prospect of the Webb claims succeeding and that it should be summarily dismissed.

For the reasons set out below an order for summary dismissal of the Webb claims is not appropriate. The Webb claims should proceed to trial.

Summary Judgment - Relevant Principles

For the defendants to succeed in a summary…

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 Webb v Ryan

Details

AGLC: Webb v Ryan [2011] VSC 461
Case: [2011] VSC 461
Decision Date: 19 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Webb v Ryan, the plaintiffs, who were family friends and business partners of the deceased, sought a share of the estate of the deceased, Mr Webb. Mr Webb, a widower with no children or dependents, had passed away and left his estate to his brother and sister-in-law. The plaintiffs argued that due to the close relationship they shared with Mr Webb, akin to a parent and child, he had a responsibility to provide for them in his will. The defendants contested the claims, arguing that they lacked a real prospect of success and were therefore subject to summary dismissal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the relationship between the deceased and the plaintiffs was such that it imposed a responsibility on the deceased to make provision for them in his will. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether the claims of the plaintiffs had no real prospect of success, thereby warranting summary dismissal under section 91 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic). Additionally, the court had to consider the provisions of sections 63 and 64 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) and the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic), order 23, in the context of the application for summary dismissal.

The court found that the relationship between the deceased and the plaintiffs, while close, did not reach the level of dependency that would impose a legal responsibility on the deceased to provide for them in his will. The court emphasised that the testator was not under any obligation to make provision for those with whom he shared a close familial-like relationship unless they were dependent upon him. The court further held that the claims of the plaintiffs had no real prospect of success, as the relationship did not meet the legal threshold for dependency. Consequently, the court found that the claims were appropriately subject to summary dismissal under the relevant statutory provisions and rules.

The final orders of the court were that the claims of the plaintiffs be summarily dismissed, with each party to bear their own costs of the application. The court's decision underscored the importance of the legal definition of dependency in claims against an estate and the threshold for real prospect of success in relation to such claims.

Orders