Tiburzi v Butler

[2017] SASCFC 89

South Australia Full Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Succession
2. › Family provision
3. › Requirement for adequate and proper maintenance
4. › Whether applicant left with insufficient provision
5. › Claims by adult children
6. › Relevance of estrangement between parent and child
7. › Competing moral claims of non-family beneficiary
8. › Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1972 (SA), s 7
1. Succession
2. › Family provision
3. › Quantum of further provision
4. › Whether reasons for amount adequate
5. › Whether amount unreasonable or plainly unjust
6. › Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1972 (SA), s 7
1. Appeal
2. › Appeal from discretionary judgment
3. › Family provision order
4. › Principles of appellate restraint
5. › Whether error within meaning of House v The King established
6. › Whether evaluative determination of jurisdictional question subject to same appellate restraint as discretionary order
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Disclosure obligations
3. › Family provision claims
4. › Whether plaintiff obliged to obtain formal valuation of private company shareholding

Quick Take

A plaintiff in a family provision claim is not obliged to obtain a formal valuation of a private company shareholding where the court is satisfied on disclosed financial information that the company has only a modest value. Complaints about the weight given by a trial judge to a period of estrangement and testamentary freedom in a family provision case are complaints about weight, not appellable error within House v The King. Reasons for the quantum of further provision need not include a breakdown of the amount awarded, provided the relevant considerations are identified and the detail of findings emerges from the reasons read as a whole.