Andrew v Andrew [2012] NSWCA 308

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Andrew v Andrew [2012] NSWCA 308 Hearing dates: 14 June 2012 Decision date: 28 September 2012 Before: Allsop P at [1]; Basten JA at [22]; Barrett JA at [62] Decision: (1)Allow the appeal and set aside the orders made in the Equity Division on 4 and 11 March 2011. (2)In lieu thereof - (a)order that further provision be made for the plaintiff out of the estate of Rita Melba Andrew deceased such that the plaintiff has, in lieu of the legacy of $10,000 provided for in the will of the deceased, a legacy of $60,000, with the additional $50,000 to be provided: (i)as to $35,000 out of moneys to which Michael Robert Andrew would otherwise be entitled under the will; (ii)as to $5,000 out of moneys to which Jennifer Annette Smith would otherwise be entitled under the will; (iii)as to $5,000 out of moneys to which Lisa Gae Andrew would otherwise be entitled under the will; and (iv)as to $5,000 out of moneys to which Tracey Lee Andrew would otherwise be entitled under the will; (b)order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs. (3)Order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs in this Court. (4)Grant liberty to the respondent to seek an order from the trial judge that his costs be recoverable out of the estate of Rita Melba Andrew deceased. (5)Grant the respondent a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW). [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Catchwords: SUCCESSION - application for family provision order under Part 3 Succession Act 2006 - comparison of that legislation with former Family Provision Act - whether new legislation requires departure from approaches adopted under former legislation - testatrix with five children gives small legacy only to one daughter and makes more extensive provision for other children - long estrangement between testatrix and daughter concerned - evaluative decision to be made by the court - observations on need for order to reflect community values Legislation Cited: Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic), s 91 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW), ss 7, 9 Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972 (WA). Succession Act 2006 (NSW), ss 57(1), 59, 60 Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 75A, 101(2)(r) Testator's Family Maintenance and Guardianship of Infants Act 1916 (NSW) Testator's Family Maintenance Act 1916 (NSW) Cases Cited: Amatek Ltd v Googoorewon Pty Ltd [1993] HCA 16; (1993) 176 CLR 471 Andrew v Andrew [2011] NSWSC 115 DAO v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 63; 278 ALR 765 Coates v National Trustees, Executors and Agency Co Ltd [1956] HCA 23; 95 CLR 494 Collicoat v McMillan [1999] 3 VR 803 Diver v Neal [2009] NSWCA 54 Durham v Durham [2011] NSWCA 62 Evans v Levy [2011] NSWCA 125 Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 22; 230 CLR 89 Foley v Ellis [2008] NSWCA 288 Ford v Simes [2009] NSWCA 351 Golosky v Golosky [1993] NSWCA 111 Goodman v Windeyer [1980] HCA 31; 144 CLR 490 Hampson v Hampson [2010] NSWCA 359 Hastings v Hastings [2010] NSWCA 197 Hertzberg v Hertzberg [2003] NSWCA 311 House v R [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499 In re Allen; Allen v Manchester (1921) 41 NZLR 218 In Re Hodgson, deceased (1955) VLR 481 Kearns v Ellis (New South Wales Court of Appeal, Glass, Mahoney and McHugh JJA, 5 December 1984, unreported) Keep v Bourke [2012] NSWCA 64 Lloyd-Williams v Mayfield [2005] NSWCA 189; (2005) 63 NSWLR 1 McCarthy v McCarthy [2010] NSWCA 103 Onus v Alcoa of Australia Ltd [1981] HCA 50; 149 CLR 27 Palmer v Dolman [2005] NSWCA 361 Permanent Trustee Co Ltd v Fraser (1995) 38 NSWLR 24 Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith and St Charles Seminary, Perth v Scales [1962] HCA 19; 107 CLR 9 Samsley v Barnes [1990] NSWCA 161; (1991) DFC 95-100 Singer v Berghouse [1994] HCA 40; 181 CLR 201 Smilek v Public Trustee [2008] NSWCA 190 Stott v Cook (1960) 33 ALJR 447 Vigolo v Bostin [2005] HCA 11; 221 CLR 191 Waters v Public Transport Corporation [1991] HCA 49; (1991) 173 CLR 349 Wheatley v Wheatley [2006] NSWCA 262 Texts Cited: A Dickey, Family Provision after Death (Sydney: Law Book Co, 1992) Benjamin N Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process (New Haven; Yale University Press, 1921) New South Wales Law Reform Commission in Report 110 - Uniform Succession Laws: Family Provision (May 2005); paragraph 2.61 R Pound, The History and System of the Common Law (New York: Collier, 1939) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Lynne Christine Andrew - Appellant Michael Robert Andrew - Respondent Representation: Ms E A Cohen - Appellant Mr L J Ellison SC/Mr D Liebhold - Respondent Camden Haven's Local Lawyer - Appellant MCW Lawyers - Respondent File Number(s): 2010/00059123 Decision under appeal Citation: Andrew v Andrew [2011] NSWSC 115 Date of Decision: 2011-03-11 00:00:00 Before: Hallen AsJ