SUPREME COURT Decision Reserved On Application By Widow

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30535, 2 September 1964, Page 22

SUPREME COURT Decision Reserved On Application By Widow

Mr Justice Macarthur in the Supreme Court yesterday reserved his decision on a widow’s application under the Family Protection Act for increased provision from her husband's estate.

Mabel Euphemia Gray (Mr H. J. B. Quigley) was the plaintiff in the action against the estate of her husband, John Douglas Gray. The other parties were: trustees and first defendants, Kenneth John McLaren. Gray and Geoffrey Maitland Gray (Mr R. L. Kerr); second defendants, Shirley Clare Brown, Kenneth John McLaren Gray, Geoffrey Maitland Gray, and the estate of S. M. Gray, deceased (Mr A. D. Holland); third defendants, Elizabeth Gray and David Gray, Infant children of S. M. Gray (Mr E. J. Somers). Mr Quigley said that the plaintiff, who was John Gray’s second wife, asked for a lump sum of £2OOO and increased income from the estate, or alternatively £l5 a week. The grounds for the application were her husband’s gift of a Worcester street property to the children of the first marriage shortly before his death and a gift to them of £2OOO. Second, when the plaintiff married Gray he promised to make her independent in her own right, and that had not. been done.

Mr Holland said it was conceded that the testator’s paramount duty was to his widow. The Court was dealing with an estate of upward of £7OOO. The widow had already received £1672 14s 9d under the will. This had left her a home which she owned jointly with her son free of encumbrances. She also received the net income from a block of flats in Gloucester street, which meant she received £7 3s a week. Recent lettings would have increased her weekly income by almost £l. In addition, she received- a discretionary Income of about £1 a week which the trustees had given her and which was the remainder of the income from the estate. In a few years she could apply for universal superannuation. The codicil under which the bequests had been made to the plaintiff replaced a clause which would have given the plaintiff £8 a week. His Honour during the proceedings said the award of lump sums to widows was rare and was done only in exceptional circumstances. What was usually done was to increase the widow’s income, and, without some cogent authority, to award her a lump sum would be to fly in the face of the law.