Legal Research
Cases
Williams v Williams

Williams v Williams

Case [2022] NSWSC 711 2 June 2022

Family Provision

Wills

Financial Advancement

Succession Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Williams v Williams [2022] NSWSC 711
Hearing dates: 9, 10, 11 and 12 August 2021
Date of orders: 31 May 2022
Decision date: 02 June 2022
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Slattery J
Decision:
Order for provision made in favour of the plaintiff out of the deceased’s estate in the sum of $625,000 payable within 2.5 years. Plaintiff’s costs to be paid out of the estate on the ordinary basis and capped. The defendant’s costs to be paid out of the estate on the indemnity basis. Directions made for the parties to relist the proceedings if they cannot reach a mechanism for lifting the security over the family property.

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION – Family Provision – claim by an adult son, for provision from the estate of his deceased father under Succession Act2006, Chapter 3 – the plaintiff is an eligible person – the deceased's will makes limited provision for the plaintiff, the deceased’s younger son – the deceased conducts farming and grazing operations on a family property in western New South Wales – under his last will the deceased left the family’s farming and grazing property to his elder son, the defendant – early in his career the plaintiff departed from the family property and established a rural agency business – the deceased encumbered the family property in order to fund the younger son’s acquisition of the agency business – the defendant remained on the family property during the deceased’s lifetime – whether the deceased made adequate provision for the plaintiff under his last will – whether further provision out of the deceased’s estate should be made for the plaintiff’s advancement in life – whether the plaintiff made any financial contribution to the acquisition, conservation and improvement of the deceased’s estate – whether the plaintiff obtained substantial financial benefits from the deceased during the deceased’s lifetime – whether the plaintiff was estranged from the deceased – whether the plaintiff has sufficient financial resources that he does not require further provision out of the deceased’s estate.

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 101
Conveyancing Act1919, s 96
Real Property Act1900
Succession Act, ss 59(1)(c), 65 and 66, Chapter 3

Cases Cited:
Andrew v Andrew (2012) 81 NSWLR 656
Anning v Anning (1907) 4 CLR 1049
Brunker v Perpetual Trustee Co. Ltd (1937) 57 CLR 555
Burke v Burke [2015] NSWCA 195
Cope v Keene (1968) 118 CLR 1
Corin v Patton (1990) 169 CLR 540
Drury v Smith [2012] NSWSC 1067
Evans v Levy [2011] NSWCA 125
Isin v Ozen [2016] NSWSC 1480
Isin v Ozen [2017] NSWCA 316
Norman v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1963) 109 CLR 9
North v Daniel [2021] NSWSC 828
Rogers v Rogers [2018] NSWSC 1982
Singer v Berghouse (No. 2) (1994) 181 CLR 201
Taylor v Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1969) 123 CLR 206
Xiang bht Cao v Tong [2021] NSWSC 44

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Plaintiff: Mr…

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 Williams v Williams

Details

AGLC: Williams v Williams [2022] NSWSC 711
Case: [2022] NSWSC 711
Decision Date: 02 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Williams v Williams came before the court concerning a claim by an adult son for provision from the estate of his deceased father under the Succession Act 2006. The son, the plaintiff, sought additional provision from his father's estate, which was left to his elder brother, the defendant, under the deceased's will. The deceased, who conducted farming and grazing operations on a family property in western New South Wales, had encumbered the family property to fund the plaintiff’s acquisition of a rural agency business. The plaintiff, having left the family property early in his career, departed from the family business and established his own agency. The deceased remained on the family property throughout his lifetime. The key issues for the court were whether the deceased had made adequate provision for the plaintiff in his will and if further provision should be made for the plaintiff’s advancement in life.

The court examined several factors, including whether the plaintiff had made any financial contribution to the acquisition, conservation, and improvement of the deceased's estate. It also considered whether the plaintiff obtained substantial financial benefits from the deceased during his lifetime, whether the plaintiff was estranged from the deceased, and whether the plaintiff had sufficient financial resources that he did not require further provision from the estate. The court found that the deceased had made provision for the plaintiff by funding the purchase of the rural agency business, but this did not fully address the plaintiff's needs. The court further determined that the plaintiff had not made a significant financial contribution to the family estate, had obtained substantial benefits during the deceased's lifetime, and was not estranged from the deceased. Given these findings, the court concluded that further provision should be made from the estate to ensure the plaintiff's reasonable financial needs were met.

The court ordered that the defendant should pay a specified sum to the plaintiff to provide for his reasonable financial needs. The court’s decision was grounded in the statutory criteria outlined in the Succession Act 2006, ensuring that the deceased's estate was distributed in a manner that considered the plaintiff's needs and contributions to the family business. This ruling aimed to balance the deceased's wishes with the statutory protections afforded to eligible family members under the Succession Act.

Orders