Court makes provision for son left out of father’s Will

Oct 31, 2023 | Publication

The recent Supreme Court of New South Wales decision of Rathswohl v Court  NSWSC 356, involved 3 siblings disputing their entitlements to their late father’s estate. The defendant, Yvette, claimed she cared for her father for the last 18 months before he passed away, with no other help from the other two siblings. The other two siblings, Lisa and Robert, the latter being the plaintiff in these proceedings, denied these claims.

The deceased’s last Will left his house to defendant, noting the plaintiff had his own business and house. The plaintiff’s business failed and his house was sold due to financial difficulty and his future employment prospects were considered slim. The plaintiff had a history of drug addiction and alcohol problems.

The plaintiff relied on a secret conversation recorded on a mobile phone between Lisa and the deceased, conversing about the time and care the defendant was supplying. In most circumstances, evidence of this character is deemed illegal without the consent of the recorded party, however, there is an exception where it is found to be reasonably necessary for the protection of the lawful interests of a participant to the conversation. The Court concluded that this evidence could be admitted, and showed Yvette was for the most part an unreliable witness.

The plaintiff succeeded in receiving a provision of $500,000 out of the Estate, which was estimated at $1.36 million, plus costs. With the Court noting the amount should allow suitable accommodation, with the surplus to go towards basic health needs.

In reaching her Honour’s decision, the Court considered the considerations listed in section 60(2) of the Succession Act. In particular, the relationship between the applicant and the deceased, the nature of the deceased estate, and the financial needs of the applicant.

The decision of Rathswohl v Court NSWSC 356 can be read in full here https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/178b4070e80fb9a1730605b7  

The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources. If you do not wish to receive newsletters from us, please let us know.

Latest Insights

The Rise of Generative AI in Law and the Need for Caution

Generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI), a subset of artificial intelligence focused on creating new content, has gained significant traction in various industries, including law. Capable of producing text, images, and audio, platforms like ChatGPT are among the...

Australia Introduces Statutory Tort for Serious Invasions of Privacy

The Australian legal landscape is about to undergo a significant transformation with the introduction of a statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy. This change comes with the passage of the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 by the Commonwealth...

Building Disputes – Which Court or Tribunal Deals with Them?

In New South Wales, there are different forums to have building disputes and claims addressed. The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal handles building disputes particularly residential building work claims.  There are numerous claims prosecuted and defended in...

When should a business take legal action on an overdue account?

Generally speaking, an overdue account should be acted on promptly.  The longer it is left, the greater the likelihood the account will need to be written off. Unless the debtor has a satisfactory reason for delaying payment, the account should be followed...

Court Rules Against Kmart in Personal Injury Appeal

In a recent case, Kmart has been held liable for injuries sustained by a customer in its Woy Woy store, after a mountain bike in a heavy, oversized box fell from another customer's shopping trolley, injuring Ms Rita Marmara. The New South Wales Court of Appeal upheld...

Can a Shareholder claim against a Company?

A shareholder can claim against a company under some circumstances. Shareholders have specific rights and interests in a company, and there are scenarios where they might have grounds to make a claim. Some common situations include: Breach of Shareholder Agreement: If...

Court of Appeal Clarifies GP’s Duty of Care in Varipatis v Almario

In a landmark decision, the New South Wales Court of Appeal upheld the appeal of a general practitioner (GP) who was previously found negligent for not referring a morbidly obese patient for bariatric surgery. The case, Varipatis v Almario [2013] NSWCA 76, provides...