Butcher v Craig

[2010] WASCA 92

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Succession Law
2. › Family provision
3. › Application under Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972 (WA)
4. › Jurisdictional question
5. › Whether disposition of estate made adequate provision for proper maintenance, support, education or advancement in life
6. › Competing claims of children and grandchildren
7. › Whether master's decision so unreasonable as to indicate latent error
8. › Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972 (WA), s 6(1)
1. Succession Law
2. › Family provision
3. › Quantum of provision
4. › Alteration of will
5. › Relevant considerations at date of order
6. › Competing claims of beneficiaries
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Review of discretionary decision on jurisdictional question under family provision legislation
4. › Whether result so unreasonable as to indicate latent error
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Family provision proceedings
4. › Whether solicitor-client costs or party-party costs appropriate for successful applicant
5. › No established practice in Western Australia for solicitor-client costs
6. › Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972 (WA), s 14(6)

Quick Take

When determining the jurisdictional question under s 6(1) of the Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972 (WA), the moral claims of all beneficiaries are relevant, not only at the second discretionary stage. The word 'proper' in s 6(1) requires consideration beyond satisfying basic needs, and an applicant's frugal lifestyle does not set the benchmark for adequate provision. In Western Australia, there is no established practice that a successful applicant in family provision proceedings should receive solicitor-client costs; party-party costs are the appropriate order absent unreasonable or improper conduct.