Plummer & Anor v Montgomery is a judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in a family provision case, where two stepchildren of the deceased sought an order for provision out of her estate. The deceased had left her estate, valued at about $1.2 million, to her two biological children and one grandchild, and had excluded her stepchildren, who were the children of her late husband from his previous marriage. She had also left a written statement explaining her reasons for doing so, which included allegations of intolerable and malicious behaviour by the stepchildren towards her and her husband.
The Court had to determine whether the stepchildren were eligible persons, whether there were factors warranting the making of the application, and whether adequate provision for their proper maintenance and advancement in life had not been made by the deceased’s Will.
The Stepchildren Were Eligible Persons
The Court accepted that the stepchildren were eligible persons, as they had been partly dependent on the deceased and members of her household at some point in their lives.
The issue regarding eligibility in the case revolved around whether the plaintiffs, Sharon Dorothea Plummer and Michelle Helen Hunt, were ‘eligible persons’ under section 57(1)(e) of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) (‘the Act’). Initially, there was a dispute about their eligibility as they were stepchildren of the deceased, Norma Mary Helen Plummer. However, it was ultimately accepted that each plaintiff was a member of the household and partly dependent upon the deceased, thus satisfying the criteria for eligibility under the Act.
The reasoning for their eligibility was based on the fact that they were partly dependent on the deceased and were members of her household at some point in their lives.
No Basis to Bring Application
However, the Court found that there were no factors warranting the making of the application, as the stepchildren had very limited contact with the deceased for many years prior to her death and had shown no interest or concern for her welfare. The Court also considered the deceased’s written statement, and gave weight to her testamentary intentions, as she had been in a better position to assess the claims on her estate than the Court.
The Court found that the deceased had provided detailed and cogent reasons for excluding the stepchildren, some of which were corroborated by other evidence. The Court did not accept the stepchildren’s denials of the deceased’s allegations and found that their evidence was self-serving and unreliable. The Court concluded that the deceased had made adequate provision for the stepchildren’s proper maintenance and advancement in life, as they had no financial need or moral claim on her estate. The Court declined to make any order for provision for the stepchildren and ordered them to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation
