The Victorian Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal from a family provision order of $635,000 (comprising $335,000 for a one-bedroom flat and $300,000 for contingencies) made in favour of an adult child who had lived rent-free in the family home for 17 years, where the estate of approximately $1.58 million was to be divided equally among seven children. The Court confirmed that the trial judge's assessment of 'proper maintenance and support' as the minimum reasonably required to avert homelessness was a permissible exercise of discretion, informed by the modest estate, the testator's clear intention for equal distribution, and the competing claims of other beneficiaries. The Court also confirmed that the testator's intentions, made a mandatory consideration under the 2014 amendments to s 91A(1), may inform the evaluation of what constitutes 'proper' maintenance and support, though this must be balanced against the applicant's financial needs.
The full text is available to signed-in members.