Jeffery v Guider; Parry v Guider [2010] NSWSC 705

Jeffery v Guider; Parry v Guider [2010] NSWSC 705

The will did not make adequate provision for Gregory because he had no real assets, faced significant employment and health obstacles, maintained some relationship with the deceased, and the deceased bore substantial responsibility for the poor relationship and for aspects of his life; the estate was sufficient to provide him with 55% so as to give practical security and assist his recovery. Louise was also left without adequate provision because costs incurred in relation to Gregory's claim, which she did not control, substantially reduced the amount she could reasonably have expected to receive, while Mark's claim to testamentary recognition was weak; appropriate provision for her was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Applications Pursuant to S 7 of the Family Provision Act 1982 / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Applications allowed in part; provision varied and costs ordered from the estate.
Legal Topics
['family Provision' 'adult Children' 'adequate Provision for Proper Maintenance, Education and Advancement in Life' 'testamentary Recognition' 'indemnity Costs From Estate']
['succession' 'equity' 'costs'] ['family Provision' 'adult Children' 'adequate Provision for Proper Maintenance, Education and Advancement in Life' 'testamentary Recognition' 'indemnity Costs From Estate']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Family Provision Applications Pursuant to S 7 of the Family Provision Act 1982 / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the deceased left Gregory Dean Parry without adequate provision for his proper maintenance, education and advancement in life.' 'Whether the deceased left Louise Allison Jeffery without adequate provision for her proper maintenance, education and advancement in life.' "What provision, if any, should be made for the plaintiffs out of the deceased's estate." 'What costs orders should be made where Louise Allison Jeffery was only partially successful.']

Ratio Decidendi

The will did not make adequate provision for Gregory because he had no real assets, faced significant employment and health obstacles, maintained some relationship with the deceased, and the deceased bore substantial responsibility for the poor relationship and for aspects of his life; the estate was sufficient to provide him with 55% so as to give practical security and assist his recovery. Louise was also left without adequate provision because costs incurred in relation to Gregory's claim, which she did not control, substantially reduced the amount she could reasonably have expected to receive, while Mark's claim to testamentary recognition was weak; appropriate provision for her was...

Court Disposition

Applications allowed in part; provision varied and costs ordered from the estate.

Orders

  • ['That, in place of the gift given to him by clause 3 of the will of the deceased, the plaintiff in proceedings 2010/12473 receive 55 per cent of the net estate of the deceased after payment of all debts, expenses and costs and Mark Edward Keith Campbell receive 20% of the net estate.' "The plaintiff in proceedings...