Michael v Public Trustee [2009] NSWSC 744

Michael v Public Trustee [2009] NSWSC 744

Delia Michael, the plaintiff, as a former wife, failed to discharge her onus to show that she had been left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance under the Family Provision Act 1982, in light of unreliable and incomplete evidence about her finances, the inadequacy of the estate or notional estate to support her claim without displacing the widow, and the absence of relevant factors warranting her application. Even if such factors existed, the widow's competing claim would defeat any entitlement to provision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Application / Judgment (final Disposition After Hearing)
Outcome
Plaintiff's proceedings dismissed
Legal Topics
['family Provision Act 1982' 'eligible Person' 'proper Maintenance' 'notional Estate' 'testamentary Bounty' 'competing Claims']
['succession Law' 'family Provision'] ['family Provision Act 1982' 'eligible Person' 'proper Maintenance' 'notional Estate' 'testamentary Bounty' 'competing Claims']

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

Family Provision Application / Judgment (final Disposition After Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff, as a former spouse, has been left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance under the Family Provision Act 1982' 'Whether the superannuation entitlements can be designated as notional estate' 'Whether there are factors warranting the making of an order in favour of the plaintiff' 'Impact of competing claim by widow, sole beneficiary under will']

Ratio Decidendi

Delia Michael, the plaintiff, as a former wife, failed to discharge her onus to show that she had been left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance under the Family Provision Act 1982, in light of unreliable and incomplete evidence about her finances, the inadequacy of the estate or notional estate to support her claim without displacing the widow, and the absence of relevant factors warranting her application. Even if such factors existed, the widow's competing claim would defeat any entitlement to provision.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's proceedings dismissed

Orders

  • ['The proceedings be dismissed.' 'The exhibits may be returned.' 'Proceedings stood over for submissions as to costs.']