Howard Norman Sampson v Ethel Esther Sampson and Perpetual Executors Trustees and Agency Company (WA) Limited [1945] HCA 20

Howard Norman Sampson v Ethel Esther Sampson and Perpetual Executors Trustees and Agency Company (WA) Limited [1945] HCA 20

Section 3(4) of the Act is not restrictive: the court may make an order for both a lump sum and periodic payments. The Chief Justice was entitled to find that the widow had not received adequate provision and to order increased maintenance. No cogent reason was shown for appellate interference with the quantum awarded.

Parties
Appellant; Defendant; Residuary Beneficiary's Representative: Howard Norman Sampson; Respondent; Plaintiff; Widow: Ethel Esther Sampson; Respondent; Defendant; Executor: Perpetual Executors Trustees and Agency Company (W.A.) Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Supreme Court of Western Australia (originating Summons) / Final Appellate Decision
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Testator's Family Maintenance, Will Variation, Provision for Widow, Remedial Statutes
Succession Law Family Provision Testator's Family Maintenance Will Variation Provision for Widow Remedial Statutes

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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Howard Norman Sampson

Appellant; Defendant; Residuary Beneficiary's Representative

Ethel Esther Sampson

Respondent; Plaintiff; Widow

Perpetual Executors Trustees and Agency Company (W.A.) Ltd.

Respondent; Defendant; Executor

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Supreme Court of Western Australia (originating Summons) / Final Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Testator's Family Maintenance Act 1939-1944 (W.A.), s. 3 allow an order providing both a lump sum and periodical payment?
  2. 2 Was the widow left without adequate provision for her maintenance and advancement, justifying intervention?
  3. 3 Should an appellate court interfere with the quantum of provision fixed by the court of first instance?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 3(4) of the Act is not restrictive: the court may make an order for both a lump sum and periodic payments. The Chief Justice was entitled to find that the widow had not received adequate provision and to order increased maintenance. No cogent reason was shown for appellate interference with the quantum awarded.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs of all parties payable out of residue of estate; trustee's costs as between solicitor and client