Jones v Jones [2014] NSWSC 960

Jones v Jones [2014] NSWSC 960

The deceased did not make adequate provision for the proper maintenance and advancement in life of each of the plaintiffs by her Will; given their financial circumstances, immediate needs, and competing claims, a lump sum equating to 21% of the net estate for each plaintiff is appropriate, with residuary beneficiaries' shares adjusted proportionately. Orders made to implement this, including appointment of Defendant to represent estate, administrative grant to plaintiffs, sale of estate assets, payment of costs, and liberty to apply.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Mark Andrew Jones; Second Plaintiff: Martin Conrad Jones; Defendant: Antony Donald Jones
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Claim / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Family provision orders made for both plaintiffs; orders for distribution of estate, sale of assets, payment of costs, grant of administration, and adjustment of shares among beneficiaries.
Legal Topics
Family Provision, Adequate and Proper Provision, Entitlement of Adult Children, Distribution of Small Estate, Competing Claims Among Family Members
Succession Law Family Provision Adequate and Proper Provision Entitlement of Adult Children Distribution of Small Estate Competing Claims Among Family Members

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 78 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Andrew Jones

First Plaintiff

Martin Conrad Jones

Second Plaintiff

Antony Donald Jones

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Family Provision Claim / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adequate and proper provision was made for each plaintiff's maintenance and advancement in life by the Will of the deceased
  2. 2 Whether further provision should be made for each plaintiff out of the estate, and the quantum thereof
  3. 3 How net estate should be distributed among plaintiffs and residuary beneficiaries

Ratio Decidendi

The deceased did not make adequate provision for the proper maintenance and advancement in life of each of the plaintiffs by her Will; given their financial circumstances, immediate needs, and competing claims, a lump sum equating to 21% of the net estate for each plaintiff is appropriate, with residuary beneficiaries' shares adjusted proportionately. Orders made to implement this, including appointment of Defendant to represent estate, administrative grant to plaintiffs, sale of estate assets, payment of costs, and liberty to apply.

Court Disposition

Family provision orders made for both plaintiffs; orders for distribution of estate, sale of assets, payment of costs, grant of administration, and adjustment of shares among beneficiaries.

Orders

  • Defendant appointed to represent deceased's estate and notional estate for proceedings (Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rule 7.10(2)(b))
  • Orders bind the estate as if Defendant were personal representative