Delaney v Jones, Delaney v Jones [2008] NSWSC 229

Delaney v Jones, Delaney v Jones [2008] NSWSC 229

Brydie Leigh Delaney was inadequately provided for by a $5,000 legacy and the deceased's reasons for making only a small bequest were not valid, but her present accommodation, income, existing assets and circumstances did not justify provision sufficient to buy a home or meet the full amount claimed. Proper provision was a fund for advancement enabling future independence, including a possible motor vehicle or deposit for housing, fixed at $150,000. There was no basis to make Kim Louise Jones bear the burden of that provision rather than having it borne equally as between the residuary beneficiaries. Wayne Delaney's separate summons was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Claim Under the Family Provision Act 1982 / Final Hearing; Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
In matter 3347 of 2006 provision of $150,000 was made for Brydie Leigh Delaney. In matter 2050 of 2007 Wayne Delaney's summons was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['adequate Provision for Maintenance, Education and Advancement' 'provision for Adult and Young Adult Children' 'freedom of Testation' 'competing Claims on an Estate' 'costs Proportionality in Family Provision Proceedings']
['succession' 'family Provision' 'costs'] ['adequate Provision for Maintenance, Education and Advancement' 'provision for Adult and Young Adult Children' 'freedom of Testation' 'competing Claims on an Estate' 'costs Proportionality in Family Provision Proceedings']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Family Provision Claim Under the Family Provision Act 1982 / Final Hearing; Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Brydie Leigh Delaney had been left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance, education and advancement in life from her father's estate." 'What provision ought to be made for Brydie Leigh Delaney from the estate.' 'Whether any provision for Brydie Leigh Delaney should be borne otherwise than equally by the residuary beneficiaries, Kim Louise Jones and Wayne Delaney.' 'What costs orders should be made, including in light of the amount and proportionality of costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Brydie Leigh Delaney was inadequately provided for by a $5,000 legacy and the deceased's reasons for making only a small bequest were not valid, but her present accommodation, income, existing assets and circumstances did not justify provision sufficient to buy a home or meet the full amount claimed. Proper provision was a fund for advancement enabling future independence, including a possible motor vehicle or deposit for housing, fixed at $150,000. There was no basis to make Kim Louise Jones bear the burden of that provision rather than having it borne equally as between the residuary beneficiaries. Wayne Delaney's separate summons was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

In matter 3347 of 2006 provision of $150,000 was made for Brydie Leigh Delaney. In matter 2050 of 2007 Wayne Delaney's summons was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Order in favour of Brydie Leigh Delaney in the sum of $150,000.' 'Order the costs of the defendant on the trustee basis be paid out of the estate.' 'Order the costs of the plaintiff up to an amount of $70,000 be paid out of the estate of the deceased.' 'In matter 2050/07 order the summons be dismissed.' 'Order the...