This case concerns an appeal against a judge’s refusal to sanction a proposed compromise of a claim by a disabled man, John Abrahams, for better provision from his late father’s estate under the Succession Act. John has Down Syndrome and other conditions. His father’s will made no provision for him.
The judge denied John’s lawyers the opportunity to fully argue the proposed reasonable compromise of $140,000, saying John’s needs were met in his care facility. The appeal court finds John was denied natural justice as his lawyers were prevented from detailing his unmet needs. The judge also failed to properly consider evidence establishing John’s needs and rights as a disabled person to be supported to participate in society.
In sanctioning such compromises, courts should approve reasonable settlements between capable parties unless clearly unjust. The court highlighted that the final disposition of a Family Provision application is an exercise of the court’s discretion and cannot be achieved through agreement or deed. The court must consider whether it should make an order to provide for the applicant, and this can only be done if the court has jurisdiction under the terms of the statute. The test for a Family Provision application involves a two-stage process: assessing whether the provision made for the applicant is inadequate for their proper level of maintenance, considering factors like the applicant’s financial position and the deceased’s estate. If the first stage is satisfied, the second stage determines what provision should be made. In this case, the applicant, a disabled son, had a need and a moral claim, and the court’s jurisdiction was established as no provision was made for him in the deceased’s estate.
In this case, the Public Trustee, as the applicant’s litigation guardian, reached an agreement with the solicitor for three other family members interested in the estate. They applied to the District Court for approval of the compromise. The appropriate approach for the court in such cases is that if the parties agree to settle under the Family Provision Act and there are no other interests involved, the court should make orders in accordance with the settlement terms, but the court should also consider the evidence, the risks of litigation, and whether the settlement falls within the bounds of a reasonable exercise of discretion.
The appeal court concludes the compromise fell within the reasonable exercise of discretion and should have been sanctioned as in John’s best interests. The judge’s reasons failed to acknowledge John’s human rights. The court allows the appeal and sanctions the compromise of John’s claim as appropriate and beneficial for providing for his needs.