Strano v Jovcevski [2008] NSWSC 380

Strano v Jovcevski [2008] NSWSC 380

The plaintiff was not left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance, considering the intermittent nature and length of the relationship, the benefits received by the plaintiff during and after the relationship (including occupation of property), and the fact that any order for provision would primarily benefit the plaintiff’s creditors and not the plaintiff herself. Discretion would not be exercised to designate assets as notional estate where no practical benefit accrues to the applicant.

Parties
Plaintiff: Alma Strano; Defendant: Steven Jovcevski
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Claim / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Family Provision, Succession, Notional Estate, Prescribed Transactions, Adequacy of Provision, Costs
Succession Law Family Provision Succession Notional Estate Prescribed Transactions Adequacy of Provision Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alma Strano

Plaintiff

Steven Jovcevski

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Family Provision Claim / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance under the Family Provision Act 1982
  2. 2 Whether the notional estate provisions allow provision out of assets transferred to the defendant
  3. 3 Whether any provision made would benefit the plaintiff or simply her creditors

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was not left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance, considering the intermittent nature and length of the relationship, the benefits received by the plaintiff during and after the relationship (including occupation of property), and the fact that any order for provision would primarily benefit the plaintiff’s creditors and not the plaintiff herself. Discretion would not be exercised to designate assets as notional estate where no practical benefit accrues to the applicant.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed

Orders

  • The proceedings be dismissed.
  • The Plaintiff pay the costs of the Defendant, such costs to be on the party and party basis.