Webster v Strang; Steiner v Strang [No 2] - [2018] NSWSC 1411

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Webster v Strang; Steiner v Strang [No 2] [2018] NSWSC 1411
Hearing dates: 6 July 2018
Decision date: 13 September 2018
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Kunc J
Decision:
Orders for burden of additional provision not varied; stays pending appeal granted on terms

Catchwords: SUCCESSION – family provision and maintenance – principles upon which relief granted – claim by adult children against large estate – application by beneficiaries not separately represented at earlier hearing to vary orders as to how additional provision should be borne among beneficiaries – application for stays pending appeal
Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Uniform Law Act (NSW)
Succession Act 2006 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Chan v Chan [2016] NSWCA 222
Foley v Ellis [2008] NSWCA 288
Hoobin v Hoobin [2004] NSWSC 705
Re Seer and the Testator’s Family Maintenance Act (1969) 90 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 400
Sgro v Thompson [2017] NSWCA 326
Webster v Strang; Steiner v Strang [2018] NSWSC 495
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Ms Robyn Gai Webster (Plaintiff, 2012/129833)
Mr John Steiner (Plaintiff, 2012/185566)
Mr Kenneth Ross Strang (First defendant, 2012/129833 and 2012/185566)
Mr Jason Tang (Second defendant, 2012/129833 and 2012/185566)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr N Bilinsky (Plaintiff, 2012/129833)
Mr M K Condon SC (Plaintiff, 2012/185566)
Mr L Ellison SC (Defendants, 2012/129833 and 2012/185566)
R.D. Wilson SC (Robyn’s family)
M.K. Meek SC (Lesley’s family)
Solicitors:
GHS Legal Lawyers (Plaintiff, 2012/129833)
Gells Lawyers (Plaintiff, 2012/185566)
Glass Goodwin Solicitors (Defendants, 2012/129833 and 2012/185566)
Andrew R Ford Lawyers (Robyn’s family)
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Lesley’s family)

File Number(s): 2012/129833 and 2012/185566
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

Introduction

After a six day hearing in 2017 (the “Principal Hearing”), I delivered judgment in these proceedings on 23 April 2018: Webster v Strang; Steiner v Strang [2018] NSWSC 495 (the “Principal Judgment”). As set out in paragraph [61] and following of the Principal Judgment, this is the latest round in multiple proceedings between these parties that first commenced in 2012. The litigation will continue because an appeal from the Principal Judgment and, necessarily, these reasons has been foreshadowed. These reasons assume familiarity, and must be read, with the Principal Judgment. Defined terms in the Principal Judgment have the same meaning in these reasons. I shall again, without disrespect, refer to the various family members by their given names.
The process of determining what orders should be made to give effect to the Principal Judgment resulted in six motions being filed. Those motions were both by existing parties and by parties wishing to be joined in either or both of John’s case and Robyn’s case. I heard the argument in relation to all of the motions on 6 July 2018. This judgment resolves those motions and determines the final form of orders to give effect to the Principal Judgment.

Summary

The various motions and the parties’ submissions raised four areas for consideration:

What provision should be made for John’s accommodation;

Where the burden of any additional provision should fall;

The form of the orders generally;

Whether there should…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Webster v Strang; Steiner v Strang [No 2] and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] NSWSC 1411
Decision Date: 13 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, Webster and Steiner, are the adult children of the deceased, Strang. They brought an application under the Family Provision Act 1969 (NSW) seeking to vary the orders made by the court as to how additional provision should be borne among the beneficiaries. The defendants are the executors of the estate. The dispute revolves around the distribution of Strang's estate, which includes significant property holdings and personal wealth. The court was tasked with determining whether the existing distribution was just and equitable, and if not, how it should be altered.

The court was required to decide whether the initial distribution of the estate was just and equitable, considering the needs of the plaintiffs as adult children, and whether the plaintiffs' application to vary the orders should be granted. The court also needed to determine whether to grant stays pending the appeal to prevent any changes to the estate distribution while the appeal was being heard.

The court found that the initial distribution of the estate was not just and equitable, as the plaintiffs' needs were not adequately met. The court accepted that the plaintiffs' applications to vary the orders should be granted, and that the additional provision should be borne among the beneficiaries in a manner that more closely reflected their needs. The court also considered the urgency of the matter and granted the stays pending the appeal to ensure that the estate distribution remained unchanged until the appeal was resolved. The reasoning was based on the principle that family provision claims should be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the individual circumstances of each beneficiary.

Orders