Medlock v Cram [2011] NSWSC 285
The plaintiff was found to be an eligible person with some dependency on the deceased. However, the adequate provision had not been made for her was not sufficient to warrant an order for further provision due to the small size of the estate and the needs of the primary beneficiaries, the daughters of the deceased. Therefore, the summons was dismissed.
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Cheryl Medlock; Defendant: Lorraine Cram
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 12 April 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Family Provision Claim / Decision After Hearing
- Outcome
- Summons dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Family Provision, Competing Claims, Financial Resources and Needs of Claimants, Small Estate, Provision for Grandchild
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Cheryl Medlock
Plaintiff
Lorraine Cram
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Claim / Decision After Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is an eligible person to apply for family provision under the Succession Act 2006
- 2 Whether there are factors warranting the making of the application
- 3 Whether adequate provision for proper maintenance, education and advancement in life has been made for the plaintiff
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiff was found to be an eligible person with some dependency on the deceased. However, the adequate provision had not been made for her was not sufficient to warrant an order for further provision due to the small size of the estate and the needs of the primary beneficiaries, the daughters of the deceased. Therefore, the summons was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Summons dismissed.
Orders
- Summons dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment