1: Mead -v- Lemon [2015] WASC 71 | February 26, 2015

Court or Tribunal: Supreme Court of Western Australia
Catchwords: Family Provision, High Value Estates, Large Estate, Wills & Probate
Judges:  Sanderson Master


Background: Olivia Jacqueline Mead was the 19 year old love-child of WA mining magnate Michael Wright, where upon his death Olivia had been left $3 million from the estate, estimated at more than $1 billion. The 19-year-old challenged the will in the Supreme Court of Western Australia this month, suing executor David Lemon and demanding $20 million worth of cash and luxury items. She claimed to have been left without adequate funds for her proper maintenance, support, education and advancement in life. Ms Mead was provided for with a $3 million trust, which she could not touch until she was aged 30, and the trust included a number of provisions, including a clause that Ms Mead would be excluded if she converted to Buddhism or Islam, or even if she had an association with a person who practice 
 
  [Legal Issue]In awarding an unprecedented $25 million cash on condition of forfeiting any right in the trust set up under the will, Master Sanderson mostly focussed on the size of the estate and the fact that, wisely invested, Olivia and her family would never want for anything ever again. In the context of the estate he commented that that sum was “little more than a rounding error”. He commented though that it was not about fairness or about compensating Olivia for the deceased’s limitations as a father but considered the position of a wise and just testator, that of community expectation and the duties of a parent arising under the Act. The award of such an enormous sum is extraordinary, particularly as it is higher than Olivia sought herself. Nonetheless the principles applied will   [Court Orders]The third daughter of late mining heir Michael Wright has succeeded in her bid to extract much more than she was left from his will, with a judge ruling she should get $25 million.     


[  ] Download Decision

2: Darveniza v Darveniza & Drakos as Executors of the Estate of Bojan Darveniza and Ors [2014] QSC 37 | March 13, 2014

Court or Tribunal: Supreme Court of Queensland
Catchwords: Estate Planning, Estoppel by Conduct, Family Provision, Family Provision, Family Trust, Family Trust, High Value Estates, Large Estate, Requirement of Adequate Maintenance, Succession, Succession, Wills
Judges:  Martin J


Background: Steven Darveniza, the eldest son of Bojan Darveniza, took his father’s widow to the Supreme Court to get a share of the estate, claiming he had worked for his father for many years. Bojan Darveniza died in 2010, aged 78, leaving most of his estate to his second wife, Xiao Hong Darveniza, now known as Jane, who was 30 years younger than him. Multi-millionaire Bojan Darveniza was a hardworking, astute investor with a talent for turning run-down properties into rental goldmines, amassing a fortune. But to his older children, Bojan was a tyrant who ruled them with an iron rod, making them work hard in the family business after school and on weekends. Bojan had eight children – Steven and Tania with first wife Lindsay; Natasha, Jonathon and Andrea with his ex-housekeeper de fact 
 
  [Legal Issue]This case involves an examination of the familial and financial relationships of the Darveniza family. Steven Darveniza has brought two matters before the Court. In the first he seeks an order for provision (pursuant to s 41 of the Succession Act 1981) from the estate of his deceased father, Bojan Darveniza (“the provision claim”). In the second, he seeks declarations about, and transfers of interests in, a number of family companies (“the trust claim”). He also seeks damages pursuant to s 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and consequential orders (“the company claim”).    [Court Orders]Bojan’s personal estate was worth $40 million at the time of his death, but the net value was now between $26 and $28 million, the court heard. Justice Martin said Steven deserved better provision from his father’s very large estate because he had worked long and hard for Bojan, contributing to the growth of his property interests. Two reasons for his father not providing for him in his will were misconceived or based on a misunderstanding, the judge said. He also accepted Steven co     


[  ] Download Decision