Keaton v Gumulak [2020] NSWSC 943

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Keaton v Gumulak [2020] NSWSC 943 Hearing dates: 7 July 2020 Date of orders: 7 July 2020 Decision date: 23 July 2020 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Hallen J Decision: The Court: (1) Orders, pursuant to s 59 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) that in lieu of the provision made for her in Clause 3(b) of the Will dated 27 May 2018 of Patricia Gumulak, the Plaintiff receive, by way of provision, a lump sum of $95,000. (2) Orders that no interest is to be paid on the lump sum if it is paid by 1 September 2020; and if not so paid, interest is to be paid on any unpaid part thereof, calculated at the rate prescribed by s 84A(3) of the Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW), from 2 September 2020 until the date of payment in full. (3) Orders that the burden of the provision made for the Plaintiff be borne equally by John Leslie Gumulak (the Defendant) and Anne Maree Butler, the residuary beneficiaries named in Clause 3(c) of the deceased's Will. (4) Orders that the Plaintiff receive a specified gross sum instead of assessed costs, agreed at $66,800, for her costs of the proceedings, to be paid out of the estate of the deceased. (5) Orders that the Defendant's costs, calculated on the indemnity basis, of the proceedings, be paid, or retained, as the case may be, out of the estate of the deceased. (6) Orders that the hearing date listed on 9 July 2020 be vacated. (7) Orders that the Exhibits be returned. Catchwords: SUCCESSION – Family provision – Claim by adult child for provision from the deceased's estate under Succession Act 2006 (NSW), Ch 3 – The Defendant is also an adult child of the deceased – Close relationship between Defendant and deceased – Plaintiff estranged from deceased for a few years before deceased's death – Relevance of Plaintiff's diagnosis of PTSD and Borderline Personality Disorder on her conduct – Deceased left a Will providing a pecuniary legacy of $10,000 to the Plaintiff – No dispute about nature and value of the estate – Estate of modest value – No competing financial claim by either of the residuary beneficiaries – Whether there was, and if so, the relevance of, an estrangement of the Plaintiff and the deceased – Whether adequate and proper provision not made in Will of the deceased for the Plaintiff, and if so, the nature and quantum of the provision to be made Legislation Cited: Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW) Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW), ss 84A, 86 Succession Act 2006 (NSW), ss 3, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66, 72, 84, 99, Ch 3 Cases Cited: Alexander v Jansson (2010) 6 ASTLR 432; [2010] NSWCA 176 Andrew v Andrew (2012) 81 NSWLR 656; [2012] NSWCA 308 Bartlett v Coomber [2008] NSWCA 100 Bkassini v Sarkis [2017] NSWSC 1487 Boettcher v Driscoll (2014) 119 SASR 523; [2014] SASC 86 Bondelmonte v Blanckensee [1989] WAR 305 Borebor v Keane (2013) 11 ASTLR 96; [2013] VSC 35 Bosch v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd [1938] AC 463 Bowditch v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2012] NSWSC 275 Bowers v Bowers [2020] NSWSC 109 Bowyer v Wood (2007) 99 SASR 190; [2007] SASC 327 Brown v New South Wales Trustee and Guardian (2012) 10 ASTLR 164; [2012] NSWCA 431 Burke v Burke (No 2) (2015) 13 ASTLR 313; [2015] NSWCA 195 Butcher v Craig [2009] WASC 164 Carey v Robson (No 2) [2009] NSWSC 1199 Chan v Chan (2016) 15 ASTLR 317; [2016] NSWCA 222 Chapple v Wilcox (2014) 87 NSWLR 646; [2014] NSWCA 392 Christie v Manera [2006] WASC 287 Crossman v Riedel [2004] ACTSC 127 de Angelis v de Angelis [2003] VSC 432 Devereaux-Warnes v Hall (No 3) (2007) 35 WAR 127; [2007] WASCA 235 Diver v Neal (2009) 2 ASTLR 89; [2009] NSWCA 54 Foley v Ellis [2008] NSWCA 288 Forsyth v Sinclair (No 2) (2010) 28 VR 635; [2010] VSCA 195 Goodman v Windeyer (1980) 144 CLR 490; [1980] HCA 31 Goodsell v Wellington [2011] NSWSC 1232 Gorton v Parks (1989) 17 NSWLR 1 Grey v Harrison [1997] 2 VR 359 Hampson v Hampson (2010) 5 ASTLR 116; [2010] NSWCA 359 Harkness v Harkness (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 35 Hawkins v Prestage (1989) 1 WAR 37 Heyward v Fisher (Court of Appeal (NSW), Kirby P, 26 April 1985, unrep) Hughes v National Trustees, Executors and Agency Co of Australasia Ltd (1979) 143 CLR 134; [1979] HCA 2 Hunter v Hunter (1987) 8 NSWLR 573 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8 Kiernan v Evan Alexander George Cranston & Robyn Ruth Purcell as Executors of the Will of Frances Elizabeth Anne Cranston (No 2) [2019] WASC 410 Kleinig v Neal (No 2) [1981] 2 NSWLR 532 Kohari v Snow [2013] NSWSC 452 Liprini v Liprini [2008] NSWSC 423 MacGregor v MacGregor [2003] WASC 169 Marks v Marks [2003] WASCA 297 McCosker v McCosker (1957) 97 CLR 566; [1957] HCA 82 McGrath v Eves [2005] NSWSC 1006 McKenzie v Topp [2004] VSC 90 Poletti v Jones (2015) 13 ASTLR 113; [2015] NSWCA 107 Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith v Scales (1962) 107 CLR 9; [1962] HCA 19 R (on the application of M) v Slough Borough Council [2008] 1 WLR 1808; [2008] UKHL 52 Rogers v Rogers [2018] NSWSC 1982 Salmon v Osmond (2015) 14 ASTLR 442; [2015] NSWCA 42 Sam Wardy v Gordon Salier; William Wardy v Gordon Salier; Hassiba Wardy v Estate of late Edmond Wadih Wardy developer and Ch 3 of the Succession Act 2006 [2014] NSWSC 473 Sammut v Kleemann [2012] NSWSC 1030 Sgro v Thompson [2017] NSWCA 326 Shannon v Steinmetz [2019] HCASL 332 Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201; [1994] HCA 40 Slack v Rogan; Palffy v Rogan (2013) 85 NSWLR 253; [2013] NSWSC 522 Smith v Johnson (2015) 14 ASTLR 175; [2015] NSWCA 297 Steinmetz v Shannon (2019) 99 NSWLR 687; [2019] NSWCA 114 Stern v Sekers; Sekers v Sekers [2010] NSWSC 59 Stott v Cook (1960) 33 ALJR 447 Sung v Malaxos [2015] NSWSC 186 Taylor v Farrugia [2009] NSWSC 801 Tiburzi v Butler (2017) 17 ASTLR 1; [2017] SASCFC 89 Tobin v Ezekiel (2012) 83 NSWLR 757; [2012] NSWCA 285 Underwood v Gaudron [2014] NSWSC 1055 Underwood v Gaudron (2015) 324 ALR 641; [2015] NSWCA 269 Verzar v Verzar [2012] NSWSC 1380 Vigolo v Bostin (2005) 221 CLR 191; [2005] HCA 11 Walker v Walker (Supreme Court (NSW), Young J, 17 May 1996, unrep) White v Barron (1980) 144 CLR 431 Yee v Yee [2017] NSWCA 305 Texts Cited: Rosalind Atherton, "The Concept of Moral Duty in the Law of Family Provision – A Gloss or Critical Understanding?" (1999) 5(1) Australian Journal of Legal History 5 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Kathy Keaton (Plaintiff) John Leslie Gumulak (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: F Austin (Plaintiff) D Lloyd (Defendant)