Clark v Ro [2016] NSWSC 1877

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Clark v Ro [2016] NSWSC 1877 Hearing dates: 28-29 November 2016 Date of orders: 21 December 2016 Decision date: 21 December 2016 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Hallen J Decision: The Court orders: (i) Having found that the Plaintiff is an eligible person, and that adequate provision for his proper maintenance, education or advancement in life, has not been made for him, in the Will of the deceased, that he receive a lump sum legacy of $130,000. (ii) That no interest is to be paid on the lump sum legacy, if it is paid within 14 days of receipt by the estate of the AMP superannuation death benefits, or 8 weeks from the date of these orders, whichever is earlier; otherwise, interest, calculated at the rate prescribed by s 84A(3) Probate and Administration Act 1898, on unpaid legacies, is to be paid from that date until the date of payment of the lump sum legacy. (iii) Subject to any submissions that may be made on costs, the Plaintiff's costs, calculated on the ordinary basis, of the proceedings, and the Defendant's costs, calculated on the indemnity basis, of the proceedings, are to be paid out of the estate of the deceased. (iv) That liberty is granted to any party to apply, in these proceedings, for consequential and ancillary orders for the purpose of, or with respect to, giving effect to, and implementing, the family provision order made in favour of the Plaintiff. (v) The Exhibits should be dealt with in accordance with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (rule 31.16A and rule 33.10) and Practice Note No SC Gen 18 (Para 22). Catchwords: SUCCESSION – FAMILY PROVISION - Claim for family provision order under Part 3.2 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) – The first Defendant, the widow and sole beneficiary – The second Defendant the executor of the Will of the deceased – Probate granted – Actual estate consisting of real estate in which the first Defendant lives - Small amount of cash – Large amount of superannuation to whom paid is not determined - Whether adequate and proper provision not made in Will of the deceased for the Plaintiff – Nature and quantum of provision, if any, that ought to be made for the Plaintiff. Legislation Cited: Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW) Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW) Succession Act 2006 (NSW) Cases Cited: Andrew v Andrew [2012] NSWCA 308; (2012) 81 NSWLR 656 Bartlett v Coomber [2008] NSWCA 100 Bladwell v Davis [2004] NSWCA 170 Boettcher v Driscoll [2014] SASC 86; (2014) 119 SASR 523 Bondelmonte v Blanckensee [1989] WAR 305 Bosch v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd [1938] AC 463 Bowditch v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2012] NSWSC 275 Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 Butcher v Craig [2009] WASC 164 Carstrom v Boesen [2004] NSWSC 1109 Cetojevic v Cetojevic [2006] NSWSC 431 Chandler v Coulson [2015] NSWSC 172 Chapple v Wilcox [2014] NSWCA 392; (2014) 87 NSWLR 646 Christie v Manera [2006] WASC 287 Clifford v Mayr [2010] NSWCA 6 Cocks v Juncken [1947] HCA 16; (1947) 74 CLR 277 Collicoat v McMillan [1999] 3 VR 803 de Angelis v de Angelis [2003] VSC 432 Devereaux-Warnes v Hall (No 3) [2007] WASCA 235; (2007) 35 WAR 127 Flathaug v Weaver [2003] NZFLR 730 Foley v Ellis [2008] NSWCA 288 Goodman v Windeyer [1980] HCA 31; (1980) 144 CLR 490 Goodsell v Wellington [2011] NSWSC 1232 Gorton v Parks (1989) 17 NSWLR 1 Grey v Harrison [1997] 2 VR 359 Henry v Hancock [2016] NSWSC 71 Hughes v National Trustees Executors and Agency Co of Australasia Ltd [1979] HCA 2; (1979) 143 CLR 134 Hunter v Hunter (1987) 8 NSWLR 573 Hyland v Burbidge [2000] NSWSC 12 In re Allardice; Allardice v Allardice (1910) 29 NZLR 959 In re Allen (Deceased); Allen v Manchester [1922] NZLR 218 In the Estate of Puckridge, Deceased (1978) 20 SASR 72 Kay v Archbold [2008] NSWSC 254 Kembrey v Cuskelly [2008] NSWSC 262 Kleinig v Neal (No 2) [1981] 2 NSWLR 532 Kohari v Snow [2013] NSWSC 452 MacGregor v MacGregor [2003] WASC 169 Magill v Magill [2006] HCA 51; (2006) 226 CLR 551 Marks v Marks [2003] WASCA 297 Marshall v Carruthers [2002] NSWCA 47 Mayfield v Lloyd-Williams [2004] NSWSC 419 McCosker v McCosker [1957] HCA 82; (1957) 97 CLR 566 McGrath v Eves [2005] NSWSC 1006 McKenzie v McKenzie [1971] P 33; [1970] 3 All ER 1034 McKenzie v Topp [2004] VSC 90 Milillo v Konnecke [2009] NSWCA 109 NSW Trustee & Guardian v Hull [2011] NSWSC 1106 Palagiano v Mankarios [2011] NSWSC 61 Phillips v James [2014] NSWCA 4; (2014) 85 NSWLR 619 Permanent Trustee Co Ltd v Fraser (1995) 36 NSWLR 24 Pogorelic v Banovich [2007] WASC 45 Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith v Scales [1962] HCA 19; (1962) 107 CLR 9 R (on the application of M) v Slough Borough Council [2008] UKHL 52; [2008] 1 WLR 1808 Re Buckland, Deceased [1966] VR 404 Re the Will of Sitch (deceased); Gillies v Executors of the Will of Sitch [2005] VSC 308 Singer v Berghouse [1994] HCA 40; (1994) 181 CLR 201 Slack v Rogan; Palffy v Rogan [2013] NSWSC 522; (2013) 85 NSWLR 253 Smith v Johnson [2015] NSWCA 297 Stern v Sekers; Sekers v Sekers [2010] NSWSC 59 Stewart v Stewart [2015] QSC 238 Sung v Malaxos [2015] NSWSC 186 Szypica v O'Beirne [2013] NSWSC 297 Taylor v Farrugia [2009] NSWSC 801 Tobin v Ezekiel [2012] NSWCA 285; (2012) 83 NSWLR 757 Underwood v Gaudron [2015] NSWCA 269 Verzar v Verzar [2012] NSWSC 1380 Verzar v Verzar [2014] NSWCA 45 Vigolo v Bostin [2005] HCA 11; (2005) 221 CLR 191 Vincent v Lewis [2006] NZFLR 812 Walker v Walker (Supreme Court (NSW), Young J, 17 May 1996, unrep) Wilcox v Wilcox [2012] NSWSC 1138 Texts Cited: Rosalind Atherton, "The Concept of Moral Duty in the Law of Family Provision – a Gloss or Critical Understanding?" (1999) 5 Australian Journal of Legal History 5 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mr Nathan Leslie Clark (Plaintiff) Ms Anna Ro (also known as Chi Woo Kim) (first Defendant) Mr Ryu-Jin Lee (second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr A L Connolly (Plaintiff) Mr L Ellison SC (Defendant)