Purcell v Barry [2003] NSWSC 552

No order for provision should be made as the plaintiff was found to have been adequately provided for, particularly considering the advance payment of $70,000, her financial situation, contributions made, and the disparity with the defendant’s financial position. The application was dismissed.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 24 June 2003
Procedural Posture: Application Under the Family Provision Act 1982 / Final Judgment
Outcome: Application dismissed. Plaintiff to pay defendant's costs on a party and party basis.
Legal Topics: ['family Provision' 'provision for Adult Children' "testator's Family Maintenance" 'costs (party and Party Vs Indemnity)']

['equity' 'family Provision'] ['family Provision' 'provision for Adult Children' "testator's Family Maintenance" 'costs (party and Party Vs Indemnity)']

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

Procedural Posture

Application Under the Family Provision Act 1982 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether adequate and proper provision was made for the plaintiff from the estate of the deceased under the Family Provision Act 1982' 'Whether a prior payment of $70,000 to the plaintiff should be treated as provision from the estate' 'Whether costs should be awarded on a party and party or indemnity basis']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Plaintiff to pay defendant's costs on a party and party basis.

Orders

['The summons be dismissed.' "The plaintiff pay the defendant's costs on a party and party basis."]