Blacker v WilliamsWilliams v Williams [2003] NSWSC 773

Blacker v WilliamsWilliams v Williams [2003] NSWSC 773

Because the deceased made no provision for his de facto partner and their young daughter, both eligible persons, and because Debbie Blacker had contributed to the business assets built up with the deceased while Ashleigh required provision for support and possible future education, further provision was warranted. The provision was limited by Debbie Blacker's earning capacity and income, Ashleigh's mother's support obligation, the relatively short de facto relationship, and the legitimate competing claims of the deceased's three children of his marriage.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Applications Under the Family Provision Act in Respect of the Estate of Daryl John Williams / Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Family provision orders made for both plaintiffs; costs to be the subject of further submissions.
Legal Topics
['family Provision' 'de Facto Partner Claim' 'child Claim' 'adequate and Proper Provision' 'competing Beneficiaries']
['succession' 'equity'] ['family Provision' 'de Facto Partner Claim' 'child Claim' 'adequate and Proper Provision' 'competing Beneficiaries']

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
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Applications Under the Family Provision Act in Respect of the Estate of Daryl John Williams / Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Debbie Blacker and Ashleigh Williams were eligible persons under the Family Provision Act.' "Whether the deceased's will left the plaintiffs without adequate provision for their proper maintenance, education and advancement in life." "What provision should be made for the plaintiffs having regard to their circumstances, the estate, and the claims of the deceased's three children of his marriage."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the deceased made no provision for his de facto partner and their young daughter, both eligible persons, and because Debbie Blacker had contributed to the business assets built up with the deceased while Ashleigh required provision for support and possible future education, further provision was warranted. The provision was limited by Debbie Blacker's earning capacity and income, Ashleigh's mother's support obligation, the relatively short de facto relationship, and the legitimate competing claims of the deceased's three children of his marriage.

Court Disposition

Family provision orders made for both plaintiffs; costs to be the subject of further submissions.

Orders

  • ['Debbie Blacker is to receive a specific bequest of the one share in Abernathy Pty Ltd owned by the deceased.' 'Debbie Blacker is to receive a legacy of $165,000.' 'Ashleigh Skye Williams is to receive a legacy of $100,000.' 'The Court will hear submissions on costs.']