Graham v Vukic [2020] NSWSC 1801

Graham v Vukic [2020] NSWSC 1801

The deceased failed to make adequate provision for Blzena Graham's advancement. The earlier family arrangement and repeated promises that she would receive the Oxley Park property, together with her financial need and contributions to the deceased's welfare, created a moral obligation to provide for her from the deceased's retained interest. The 2011 transfer and will were given little or no weight because the evidence did not show that they reflected a conscious, clear and settled rejection of that obligation. A legacy of $220,000 was proper provision, and the deceased's half share of the Oxley Park property was properly available as notional estate; s 87 did not bar that order because...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Claim Under Part 3.2 of the Succession Act 2006 (nsw) / Principal Judgment After Hearing; Proceedings Adjourned for Agreed or Separate Minutes of Order and Costs
Outcome
The Court concluded that the deceased failed to make adequate provision for Blzena Graham, fixed proper provision as a $220,000 legacy, and held that the deceased's half share of the Oxley Park property should be designated as notional estate to satisfy that legacy; proceedings were adjourned for orders and costs.
Legal Topics
['adult Daughter Claim for Provision' 'proper Provision for Advancement' 'moral Obligation Arising From Family Arrangement and Promises' 'joint Tenancy and Survivorship' 'designation of Property as Notional Estate' 'reasonable Expectations Under S 87']
['succession' 'family Provision' 'notional Estate'] ['adult Daughter Claim for Provision' 'proper Provision for Advancement' 'moral Obligation Arising From Family Arrangement and Promises' 'joint Tenancy and Survivorship' 'designation of Property as Notional Estate' 'reasonable Expectations Under S 87']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Family Provision Claim Under Part 3.2 of the Succession Act 2006 (nsw) / Principal Judgment After Hearing; Proceedings Adjourned for Agreed or Separate Minutes of Order and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the deceased's will and testamentary arrangements made proper provision for Blzena Graham under s 59(1)(c) of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW)" 'If proper provision was not made, what provision ought to be made under s 59(2)' "Whether the deceased's half share of the Oxley Park property should be designated as notional estate" 'Whether s 87 considerations, including reasonable expectations in relation to property, barred a notional estate order']

Ratio Decidendi

The deceased failed to make adequate provision for Blzena Graham's advancement. The earlier family arrangement and repeated promises that she would receive the Oxley Park property, together with her financial need and contributions to the deceased's welfare, created a moral obligation to provide for her from the deceased's retained interest. The 2011 transfer and will were given little or no weight because the evidence did not show that they reflected a conscious, clear and settled rejection of that obligation. A legacy of $220,000 was proper provision, and the deceased's half share of the Oxley Park property was properly available as notional estate; s 87 did not bar that order because...

Court Disposition

The Court concluded that the deceased failed to make adequate provision for Blzena Graham, fixed proper provision as a $220,000 legacy, and held that the deceased's half share of the Oxley Park property should be designated as notional estate to satisfy that legacy; proceedings were adjourned for orders and costs.

Orders

  • ['Adjourn the proceedings to 9.30am on 17 December 2020, or such other date and time as may be arranged with my Associate.' 'Direct that the parties confer and, not less than one day before the hearing date specified in order (1), submit to the Court an agreed minute of order (or, if they do not agree, separate...