Terrence Gregory Brazier v Valerie Elizabeth Dawson and Kenneth Brazier (10/293342) Patricia Margaret Faint v Terrence Gregory Brazier, Valerie Elizabeth Dawson and Kenneth John Brazier (10/293691) Josephine Louise O'Brien (Plaintiff) v Terrence Gregory Brazier, Valerie Elizabeth Dawson and Kenneth John Brazier (10/297992) Anthony Brazier v Terrence Gregory Brazier, Valerie Elizabeth Dawson and Kenneth John Brazier (10/299165) Kenneth John Brazier v Valerie Elizabeth Dawson (11/272545) [2012] NSWSC 116

Terrence Gregory Brazier v Valerie Elizabeth Dawson and Kenneth Brazier (10/293342) Patricia Margaret Faint v Terrence Gregory Brazier, Valerie Elizabeth Dawson and Kenneth John Brazier (10/293691) Josephine Louise O'Brien (Plaintiff) v Terrence Gregory Brazier, Valerie Elizabeth Dawson and Kenneth John Brazier (10/297992) Anthony Brazier v Terrence Gregory Brazier, Valerie Elizabeth Dawson and Kenneth John Brazier (10/299165) Kenneth John Brazier v Valerie Elizabeth Dawson (11/272545) [2012] NSWSC 116

The Court was satisfied it had jurisdiction to make the consent orders. The Plaintiffs were children of the deceased and eligible persons under s 57(1)(c); the evidence showed the deceased's Will did not make adequate provision for Ms O'Brien having regard to the limited provision made for her and her needs; the proposed provision and related orders for Ms Faint and Ms Dawson were proper in light of the evidence, the parties' consent, and the comprehensive settlement of the proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Proceedings Under the Succession Act 2006 (nsw) / Hearing Listed for Six Days; Parties Reached Agreement and Sought Consent Orders
Outcome
Consent orders made. Proceedings dismissed.
Legal Topics
['family Provision' 'eligible Persons' 'adequate Provision' 'consent Orders' 'wills and Estates']
['succession' 'equity'] ['family Provision' 'eligible Persons' 'adequate Provision' 'consent Orders' 'wills and Estates']

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 Proceedings Under the Succession Act 2006 (nsw) / Hearing Listed for Six Days; Parties Reached Agreement and Sought Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court had jurisdiction to make the proposed consent orders resolving the five proceedings and a rectification application.' 'Whether the Plaintiffs, as children of the deceased, were eligible persons under s 57(1)(c) of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW).' "Whether the deceased's Will made adequate provision for Ms Josephine O'Brien's proper maintenance, education and advancement in life." 'Whether orders affecting the provision for Ms Patricia Faint and Ms Valerie Dawson could properly be made, including under s 66 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW).' 'Whether proceedings could be dismissed and costs orders made by consent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied it had jurisdiction to make the consent orders. The Plaintiffs were children of the deceased and eligible persons under s 57(1)(c); the evidence showed the deceased's Will did not make adequate provision for Ms O'Brien having regard to the limited provision made for her and her needs; the proposed provision and related orders for Ms Faint and Ms Dawson were proper in light of the evidence, the parties' consent, and the comprehensive settlement of the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Consent orders made. Proceedings dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Proceedings commenced by Mr Terrence Brazier, Mr Anthony Brazier and Mr Kenneth Brazier dismissed with no order as to the costs of the Plaintiffs in those proceedings, to the intent that each bear his own costs.' "In lieu of the provision made for Ms Josephine O'Brien under the Will, Ms O'Brien is to receive an...