Frank v Angell [2024] NSWSC 158

Frank v Angell [2024] NSWSC 158

The plaintiffs were not wholly or partly dependent on the deceased, as the financial and residential support was structured as loans and not needs-based dependency; nor were they members of the deceased's household in the required sense, being effectively boarders under a financial arrangement. If a close personal relationship existed, it ceased before death and, in any event, any domestic support provided was 'for fee or reward' and fell within the statutory exclusion. There were no factors warranting further provision, and the deceased's testamentary arrangements already provided for the plaintiffs in a manner consistent with his intentions and without creating any ongoing moral or...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Claim / Final Judgment
Outcome
Summons dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['family Provision' 'dependency' 'close Personal Relationship' 'eligibility Under Succession Law']
['equity' 'succession' 'probate'] ['family Provision' 'dependency' 'close Personal Relationship' 'eligibility Under Succession Law']

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 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs were wholly or partly dependent on the deceased for the purposes of s 57(1)(e) Succession Act 2006 (NSW)' "Whether the plaintiffs were members of the deceased's household for eligibility under s 57(1)(e)(ii)" 'Whether the plaintiffs were living in a close personal relationship with the deceased under s 57(1)(f)' 'Whether there are factors warranting the making of a family provision order' 'Whether proper and adequate provision was made for the plaintiffs from the estate']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs were not wholly or partly dependent on the deceased, as the financial and residential support was structured as loans and not needs-based dependency; nor were they members of the deceased's household in the required sense, being effectively boarders under a financial arrangement. If a close personal relationship existed, it ceased before death and, in any event, any domestic support provided was 'for fee or reward' and fell within the statutory exclusion. There were no factors warranting further provision, and the deceased's testamentary arrangements already provided for the plaintiffs in a manner consistent with his intentions and without creating any ongoing moral or...

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Summons filed on 17 August 2022 dismissed.' "Plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings." 'Any application concerning costs to be made on the papers as directed.']