Bassett v Bassett [2021] NSWCA 320

Bassett v Bassett [2021] NSWCA 320

The primary judge erred in finding that adequate and proper provision had not been made for Geoff Bassett's maintenance and advancement in life, particularly as there was no evidentiary basis to conclude he needed further provision to continue farming The Springs or that his material needs were unmet; the early inheritance of Pindaroi was not properly factored into the cross-check of family provision. Accordingly, no order for further provision should have been made. The appeal was allowed, and the family provision claim under s 59 Succession Act 2006 (NSW) dismissed.

Parties
First Appellant/first Cross Respondent: Bruce Edward Bassett; Second Appellant/second Cross Respondent: Merilyn Jill Ryan; First Respondent: Geoffrey William Bassett; Second Respondent/cross Appellant: Susan Narelle Cameron
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Family Provision, Proprietary Estoppel, Estate Administration, Costs, Offers of Compromise
Succession Law Civil Procedure Equity Family Provision Proprietary Estoppel Estate Administration Costs Offers of Compromise

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 37 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruce Edward Bassett

First Appellant/first Cross Respondent

Merilyn Jill Ryan

Second Appellant/second Cross Respondent

Geoffrey William Bassett

First Respondent

Susan Narelle Cameron

Second Respondent/cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adequate provision was made for Geoff's proper maintenance and advancement in life under s 59 of Succession Act 2006 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether claim 6 of the First Cross-Claim concerning the administration of Jill's Estate should have succeeded
  3. 3 Whether Offers of Compromise complied with Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

The primary judge erred in finding that adequate and proper provision had not been made for Geoff Bassett's maintenance and advancement in life, particularly as there was no evidentiary basis to conclude he needed further provision to continue farming The Springs or that his material needs were unmet; the early inheritance of Pindaroi was not properly factored into the cross-check of family provision. Accordingly, no order for further provision should have been made. The appeal was allowed, and the family provision claim under s 59 Succession Act 2006 (NSW) dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs other than with respect to Ground 11.
  • Merilyn and Bruce to pay Geoff's costs in relation to Ground 11.