AAE & LLE v Public Trustee of Queensland
[2013] QDC 252
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- AAE & LLE v Public Trustee of Queensland[2013] QDC 252
- Add to List
AAE & LLE v Public Trustee of Queensland[2013] QDC 252
AAE & LLE v Public Trustee of Queensland[2013] QDC 252
[2013] QDC 252
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE ROBIN QC
| AAE and LLE | Applicants |
| and | |
| PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF QUEENSLAND and ANOTHER | Respondents |
BRISBANE
10.29 AM, THURSDAY, 25 JULY 2013
JUDGMENT
| CATCHWORDS | Sanction of compromise – court not a mere “rubber stamp” Succession Act 1981 s 41 |
HIS HONOUR: The Court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft. It resolves this proceeding by twin children of the testatrix whose will essentially left everything to her husband, the step-father of the applicants. On their marriage around 1996, she became the step-mother of the two children he had, who have indicated no interest in availing themselves of the opportunity they have under section 41 of the Succession Act to be potential applicants. The gentleman’s daughter is in charge of his affairs, he being under a significant disability, in consequence an order of QCAT.
She has participated in that capacity, perhaps both of her capacities, in the process involving all the parties which results in a compromise whereby the modest estate, which essentially represents what the testatrix brought to the marriage, is divided so that the widower receives one-third and the applicants collectively two-thirds, although the provisions for them are not equal in acknowledgment of their differing circumstances. The sanction of the Court is required if only, as Ms Brewer persuaded me in another matter recently, to provide assurance against matters to do with the ultimate distribution of an estate being raised in the future.
The parties’ submissions draw attention to the importance of the Court’s role which is not one of acting as an uncritical rubber stamp, where a compromise such as the present one is reached. The determination has to be made that the court has jurisdiction on the basis of adequate provision not having been made for an applicant. The authorities mentioned include Daley v Barton [2008] QSC 228, Affoo v Public Trustee of Queensland [2011] QSC 309 and Watts v Public Trustee of Queensland [2010] QSC 410. I am comfortably satisfied in this case the jurisdictional threshold is crossed and that the Court can appropriately have regard to the agreement, that the parties should be congratulated for reaching. Order as per initialled draft.