Raymond v Public Trustee [2006] NSWSC 489

Raymond v Public Trustee [2006] NSWSC 489

The summons was dismissed because neither Plaintiff established that the Deceased's will left her or him without adequate provision for maintenance. The Court found that Susan Raymond and Trevor Crunkhorn failed to give full and frank evidence of their financial and material circumstances, that each would receive a $10,000 legacy, and that Trevor was in a better financial position than presented. The Court also found that Jeffrey Crunkhorn's competing claim was strong because he had cared for his parents, was in extremely modest circumstances, and would be the person practically affected by any further provision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Proceedings Under the Family Provision Act 1982 for Provision Out of the Estate of Stanley Norman Crunkhorn / Final Judgment on Summons After Hearing
Outcome
Summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
['claims by Adult Children' 'adequate Provision for Maintenance and Advancement in Life' 'financial and Material Circumstances of Applicants' 'competing Claim of Beneficiary' 'costs in Estate Proceedings']
['succession' 'family Provision'] ['claims by Adult Children' 'adequate Provision for Maintenance and Advancement in Life' 'financial and Material Circumstances of Applicants' 'competing Claim of Beneficiary' 'costs in Estate Proceedings']

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

Proceedings Under the Family Provision Act 1982 for Provision Out of the Estate of Stanley Norman Crunkhorn / Final Judgment on Summons After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Susan Raymond had been left without adequate provision for her maintenance by the will of the Deceased.' 'Whether Trevor Crunkhorn had been left without adequate provision for his maintenance by the will of the Deceased.' 'Whether the competing claim of Jeffrey Crunkhorn, the chief beneficiary under the will, should reduce or extinguish any entitlement to provision.' 'Whether the Plaintiffs had fully and frankly disclosed their financial and material circumstances.']

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was dismissed because neither Plaintiff established that the Deceased's will left her or him without adequate provision for maintenance. The Court found that Susan Raymond and Trevor Crunkhorn failed to give full and frank evidence of their financial and material circumstances, that each would receive a $10,000 legacy, and that Trevor was in a better financial position than presented. The Court also found that Jeffrey Crunkhorn's competing claim was strong because he had cared for his parents, was in extremely modest circumstances, and would be the person practically affected by any further provision.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed.

Orders

  • ['I order that the summons be dismissed.' 'I order that the Plaintiffs pay the costs of the Defendant, such costs to be on the party and party basis.' 'I order that the Defendant be entitled to recoup from the estate of the late Stanley Norman Crunkhorn ("the Deceased") the difference between the foregoing costs...