published by Fairfax Media Ltd) suggesting that in 2015, the deceased was possessed of wealth worth $809 million. She co
Judgment Summary Supreme Court New South Wales
Estate Grundy; La Valette v Chambers-Grundy [2018] NSWSC 104 Lindsay J The Supreme Court has determined, in relation to the estate of the late Mr Reg Grundy, that certain disclosures should be made about property and property transactions outside NSW. The Court also dismissed an application for a suppression order. The decision was made in the context of case management of a claim for family provision relief made by the daughter of Mr Grundy, under Chapter 3 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). Mr Reg Grundy died in Bermuda on 6 May 2016, aged 93 years, leaving a will dated 21 January 2011 and sufficient property in NSW to ground the jurisdiction of the Court to admit the will to probate. The deceased had one daughter (the plaintiff) who was born of his first marriage. The first defendant (his second wife) is his widow. She is also an executor named in his will and, having survived him, his principal beneficiary. Under the deceased’s will, as events have transpired, the first defendant takes “the remainder” (the residue) of his estate after provision of a lifetime annuity of $US250,000 granted in favour of the plaintiff and payment of his just debts, funeral and testamentary expenses. For the purpose of the proceedings the first defendant has conceded that: (a)
at the time of his death, the deceased’s estate, wherever situated, had a net value of not less than about $214 million; and
(b)
there is property in NSW worth about $20 million which (as actual estate of the deceased or as property able to be designated as his notional estate) is amenable to a family provision order in favour of the plaintiff, should the Court decide that she has been left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance, education or advancement in life and that a family provision order in her favour ought to be made.
The plaintiff adduced in evidence information in the public domain (via “The BRW Rich List” published by Fairfax Media Ltd) suggesting that in 2015, the deceased was possessed of wealth worth $809 million. She contends that, if the deceased’s “estate” is of that size, her case should be assessed more favourably than if the value of the “estate” is quantified at or about only $214 million. The Court held that the true value of the estate of a deceased person is a matter of importance in every family provision application. The assessment of whether “proper” provision has been made is relative to the facts of each particular case, including the size of the deceased’s estate. Respect for the testamentary intentions of the deceased operates as This summary has been prepared for general information only. It is not intended to be a substitute for the judgment of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s judgment.
a restraint upon the amount of provision deemed “proper” to award. However, the potential availability to a claimant of a large estate, where there are no competing claims by another living person, may have an effect on the size of an award of family provision relief, beyond the bare notion of the claimant’s “need” for relief. The Court noted that a trial judge might well, in due course, conclude that even if the estate is worth more than $214 million, any grant of family provision relief made in favour of the plaintiff cannot reasonably exceed the “fund” of about $20 million which the defendants have identified as available to abide the orders of the Court. However, the Court held that the plaintiff’s case cannot, in effect, be summarily dismissed by denial to her of a reasonable opportunity for discovering the true value and nature of the deceased’s property. The Court determined that it is not appropriate, by limitation of information available to the plaintiff about the size of the deceased’s estate to shut her out from arguing at a final hearing that a substantial difference in the value of the deceased’s “estate” calls for an award of family provision relief responsive to the size of that “estate”. Additionally, the Court was not satisfied that imposition upon the first defendant of an obligation to make disclosures about the deceased’s property, and property transactions, outside NSW was oppressive or otherwise unreasonable. The first defendant’s application for a suppression order was dismissed because the Court held that she had not established a case for departure from the general principle, that a primary objective of the administration of justice is to safeguard the public interest in open justice.
This summary has been prepared for general information only. It is not intended to be a substitute for the judgment of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s judgment.
