Vigolo v Bostin

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAGLEESON CJ,GUMMOW, HAYNE, CALLINAN AND HEYDON JJVIRGINIO VIGOLO  APPELLANTANDWANDA MARY BOSTIN & LEOPOLDO  RESPONDENTSVIGOLO (AS EXECUTORS OF THE WILL OF LINO VIGOLO DECEASED) & ORSVigolo v Bostin [2005] HCA 119 March 2005P30/2004ORDER1.        Appeal dismissed.2.The appellant pay the costs of the respondents as between party and party.  3.The costs of the appeal of the first and second respondents be taxed on the trustee basis and, to the extent that those costs exceed the costs borne and paid by the appellant as between party and party, be paid out of the estate. On appeal from the Supreme Court of Western AustraliaRepresentation:R I Viner QC with P Mendelow for the appellant (instructed by SS Chohaan)M J Buss QC with L A Tsaknis for the respondents (instructed by Hudson Henning & Goodman)Notice:  This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDS  Vigolo v BostinTestator's family maintenance – Adequate provision for proper maintenance – Application by son of deceased – From 1973 to 1993 appellant made substantial contribution to deceased's family farming business – Deceased promised appellant that he would inherit family farm in return for his work in building up family assets – In 1993 relationship between appellant and deceased broke down – As a consequence parties entered Deed of Settlement to rearrange family affairs including ownership of family farm, which was purchased by the appellant and his wife – Deceased's will made no provision for the appellant –...