Peter John Grey v Alfred William Harrison

[1996] VSC 74

Supreme Court of Victoria

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Succession
2. › Family provision
3. › Quantum of provision
4. › Testator's only child omitted from will
5. › Whether provision ordered by primary judge adequate
6. › Appellate review of discretionary order
7. › Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic), s 91
1. Succession
2. › Family provision
3. › Principles governing provision
4. › Criterion of wise and just testator
5. › Moral duty to make adequate provision
6. › Whether obiter in Singer v Berghouse displaced established criterion
7. › Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic), s 91
1. Appeal
2. › Review of discretionary decision
3. › Family provision order
4. › Whether primary judge mistook the facts
5. › Re-exercise of discretion by appellate court
6. › House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Quick Take

The 'wise and just testator' criterion remains the governing standard for determining adequate provision for proper maintenance and support under Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic), notwithstanding the obiter doubts expressed in Singer v Berghouse. A breach of moral duty is both the justification for curial intervention and the limit of its legitimate extent. There is no single correct provision but rather a range of appropriate provisions, determined by an instinctive synthesis of all relevant factors.