Bruce v Greentree [2015] NSWSC 1611

Bruce v Greentree [2015] NSWSC 1611

The Plaintiffs failed to show sufficient cause for delay in bringing their application and did not fully or frankly disclose their financial circumstances. There was no actual or notional estate to make provision from, and the evidence did not support the imposition of a trust over the disputed properties or proceeds. Even if the claims had been brought in time, the court would not have exercised its discretion to make provision for the Plaintiffs given the circumstances, value of the estate, and competing claims.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Family Provision and Trust Claim / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
All claims by the Plaintiffs dismissed; costs and possession orders made against Plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
['family Provision' 'intestacy' 'trusts—constructive/resulting' 'notional Estate' 'limitation Periods']
['succession Law' 'equity'] ['family Provision' 'intestacy' 'trusts—constructive/resulting' 'notional Estate' 'limitation Periods']

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 and Trust Claim / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Plaintiffs, as children of the deceased, are entitled to a family provision order under Succession Act 2006 (NSW)' 'Whether Plaintiffs established sufficient cause for extension of time for application' 'Whether trust claim or resulting/constructive trust arises over two identified lots' 'Whether part of the proceeds from sale of the Rossmore property forms actual estate of the deceased' 'Whether any provision should be made from notional estate']

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiffs failed to show sufficient cause for delay in bringing their application and did not fully or frankly disclose their financial circumstances. There was no actual or notional estate to make provision from, and the evidence did not support the imposition of a trust over the disputed properties or proceeds. Even if the claims had been brought in time, the court would not have exercised its discretion to make provision for the Plaintiffs given the circumstances, value of the estate, and competing claims.

Court Disposition

All claims by the Plaintiffs dismissed; costs and possession orders made against Plaintiffs.

Orders

  • ['Defendant appointed to represent estate and notional estate for these proceedings.' 'Any order binds the estate and notional estate as if personal representative had been a party.' 'Application to amend Statement of Claim dismissed.' "Whole of Plaintiffs' Statement of Claim dismissed." 'Caveat lodged by first...