Vukic v Luca Grbin & Ors; Estate of Zvonko Grbin (No. 2) [2006] NSWSC 212

Vukic v Luca Grbin & Ors; Estate of Zvonko Grbin (No. 2) [2006] NSWSC 212

Because the family provision order takes effect as if made in a codicil to the deceased's will, and because a vesting order under the Family Provision Act has the same effect as if the legal personal representative had executed a transfer of the property, the vesting order is, or has effect as, a transfer by the legal personal representative to a beneficiary under and in conformity with the trusts contained in the will. It is therefore chargeable only to nominal duty of $10 under Duties Act, s 63(a). As minds might differ and ad valorem duty would undermine the plaintiff's ability to retain the house, the unentered orders should be varied to reduce the legacies if duty above $10 is...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Succession — Family Provision and Maintenance; Stamp Duty / Application Before Entry of Judgment to Vary Orders Made on 9 February 2006
Outcome
Orders made on 9 February 2006 varied before entry by adding a proviso addressing stamp duty assessed in excess of $10.
Legal Topics
['vesting Order Under Family Provision Act' 'nominal Duty on Transfer From Deceased Estate' 'variation of Unentered Orders' 'charges on Property']
['succession' 'family Provision' 'duties and Stamp Duty' 'equity Procedure'] ['vesting Order Under Family Provision Act' 'nominal Duty on Transfer From Deceased Estate' 'variation of Unentered Orders' 'charges on Property']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Succession — Family Provision and Maintenance; Stamp Duty / Application Before Entry of Judgment to Vary Orders Made on 9 February 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a vesting order under the Family Provision Act is liable only to nominal duty as a transfer by a legal personal representative to a beneficiary under the trusts contained in a will.' 'Whether the orders made on 9 February 2006 should be varied before entry to address any stamp duty assessed in excess of $10.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the family provision order takes effect as if made in a codicil to the deceased's will, and because a vesting order under the Family Provision Act has the same effect as if the legal personal representative had executed a transfer of the property, the vesting order is, or has effect as, a transfer by the legal personal representative to a beneficiary under and in conformity with the trusts contained in the will. It is therefore chargeable only to nominal duty of $10 under Duties Act, s 63(a). As minds might differ and ad valorem duty would undermine the plaintiff's ability to retain the house, the unentered orders should be varied to reduce the legacies if duty above $10 is...

Court Disposition

Orders made on 9 February 2006 varied before entry by adding a proviso addressing stamp duty assessed in excess of $10.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 36.16(1), the orders made on 9 February 2006 were varied by adding at the end of paragraph 2: "Provided however, that if any stamp duty in excess of $10 is assessed on the vesting order contained in paragraph 3, and conditional upon the plaintiff having made all...