Olivia Mead’s application for special leave to appeal was dismissed by the High Court of Australia on 17 August 2018, leaving in place a Western Australian Court of Appeal award of $6,142,000. That award followed an earlier, separate appeal by the estate, which reduced a 2015 Supreme Court order of $25 million.
Two appeals, with different outcomes
The headline refers to Mead’s later attempt to challenge the reduced award—not to the estate’s earlier appeal. The two proceedings involved different parties and courts:
| Proceeding | What was challenged | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Estate’s appeal, decided by the Western Australian Court of Appeal in November 2017 | The 2015 Supreme Court order of $25 million for Mead | The order was reduced to $6,142,000, which the Court of Appeal considered adequate provision in the circumstances. ABC News, 24 November 2017 |
| Mead’s application for special leave, dismissed by the High Court on 17 August 2018 | The Court of Appeal’s reduced provision | The application was dismissed, with costs payable from the estate. The High Court bulletin records the disposition but gives no substantive reasons. High Court of Australia, Bulletin 12 of 2018 |
How the provision changed
Michael Wright died in April 2012. His will provided Mead with a trust of $3 million. In 2015, she brought a family provision claim arguing that the provision was inadequate for her needs. The Supreme Court of Western Australia ordered $25 million; the estate appealed, and the Court of Appeal reduced that amount to $6,142,000. ABC News, 7 August 2015 ABC News, 24 November 2017
ABC reported that the appellate calculation was framed around buying a Perth metropolitan home valued at $1.5 million and providing a $100,000 annual annuity for life. Those figures describe the reported basis for the court’s calculation; they are not a guarantee of investment returns or a current financial recommendation. ABC also reported that the estate’s value was more than $800 million, based on court evidence; that is a reported estimate, not a definitive audited valuation.
Why the court did not award a proportional share
Mead’s claim arose under Western Australia’s Family Provision Act 1972. Section 6(1), as reproduced in the 2015 decision record, allows a court to order provision from an estate if a will fails to make adequate provision for an eligible person’s proper maintenance, support, education or advancement in life. 2015 Supreme Court of Western Australia decision
The legal question was whether Mead had adequate provision in her circumstances, not whether she should receive the same amount as other beneficiaries or a fixed percentage of a large estate. In ABC’s account of the Court of Appeal decision, President Michael Buss said the generous treatment of Wright’s older daughters in the will must not determine what should be provided for Mead. He also said the court’s task was not to make what might appear to be a “fair distribution” of the estate. ABC News, 24 November 2017
Rank #2
- Durable hardcover with concealed wire-o binding
- Archival, acid-free paper helps preserve your information.
What the High Court decision did—and did not—decide
The High Court’s dismissal ended Mead’s attempt to take the matter further, so the Court of Appeal’s $6,142,000 provision remained in place. This was a refusal of special leave to appeal, not a new hearing of the underlying claim. The High Court bulletin lists the case as Mead v David John Neale Lemon, as executor of the estate of the late Michael John Maynard Wright & Ors, P66/2017, and records that costs were to be paid from the estate. It does not state why the application was dismissed. High Court of Australia, Bulletin 12 of 2018
Quick Recap
Rank #3
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
