Name of case:
Taylor v. Taylor & ORS [2016] WASC 71
In this application to the Court, a son made an application for further provision from the
estate on the basis he had been cut out of the Will by his father.
The main beneficiary of the estate was one of the father’s other sons, who had cared for the
father for some time.
The estate was of modest value, being approximately $560,000.
The Plaintiff son and his wife had joint assets of about $400,000, and a pre-tax income of
$118,000 a year.
There was some illness, but the Judge considered that “really what the Plaintiff is claiming is
a top-up from the deceased’s estate which will allow him and his wife to live with a degree of
comfort and certainty into the future”.
After considering all of the issues, and principles laid down by the law, the Judge held that
the “Plaintiff has an adult son, has sufficient, both by way of assets and income, not to
warrant further distribution from the estate”.
The Judge listed a summary of the principles applicable to claims by adult children, which
are set out below.
For a convenient summary of the principles applicable to claims by adult children, see Braun
v Australian Executor Trustees Ltd [2014] WASC 210 at [11], which the judge referred to.
In short:
(a) The relationship between parent and child changes when the child leaves home; the
child does not cease, however, to be natural recipient of affection or support;
(b) The community expects parents to raise and educate their children to the very best of
their ability while they remain children; probably to assist them with a tertiary
education where that is feasible; where funds allow, to provide them with a start in
life such as a deposit on a home or assistance in some other form;
(c) Generally the community expects a parent where a child falls on hard times, and there
are assets available, to provide a buffer against contingencies or to assist with
retirement;
(d) If the applicant has an obligation to support others, that will be a relevant factor in
determining appropriate provision;
(e) There is no need for an applicant child to show special need or some special claim;
(f) An adult child’s lack of reserves to meet demands, particularly of ill health, is a
relevant consideration as is the applicants inability to earn a living or to earn anything
more than a limited living;
(g) The applicant has the onus of satisfying the Court of the justification of the claim;
(h) Equality between children does not necessarily provide an appropriate guide as to
appropriate provision in respect to a particular claim;
(i) There is no obligation on a parent to equalise distributions made to his or her children.
00683.6/CR/TAY/643968/C/XXX/1/3/2016/MAC/FN/3/16
