Shelley v Prager [2020] NSWSC 1393

Shelley v Prager [2020] NSWSC 1393

The Court found no evidence that the plaintiff's maintenance, education or advancement had not been adequately provided for by the deceased's will: the relationship between plaintiff and deceased was not close, plaintiff's asset position was stronger than those beneficiaries who had put their finances in issue, and deceased's testamentary wishes favoring other children and grandson were supported by evidence of close relationships and support. The plaintiff's needs could be met from her own assets and income; community expectations and statutory guidance did not require provision in the circumstances.

Parties
Plaintiff: Dianne Elizabeth Shelley; First Defendant: Susan Elizabeth Prager; Second Defendant: Michelle Leah Warren
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Claim / Final Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Plaintiff's application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Family Provision, Claims by Adult Children, Adequate Provision, Estrangement, Testamentary Wishes, Notional Estate
Succession Law Equity Family Provision Claims by Adult Children Adequate Provision Estrangement Testamentary Wishes Notional Estate

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dianne Elizabeth Shelley

Plaintiff

Susan Elizabeth Prager

First Defendant

Michelle Leah Warren

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Family Provision Claim / Final Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deceased's will made adequate provision for the plaintiff's maintenance, education or advancement in life under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW).
  2. 2 Whether any part of the proceeds of sale of land should be designated as notional estate.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found no evidence that the plaintiff's maintenance, education or advancement had not been adequately provided for by the deceased's will: the relationship between plaintiff and deceased was not close, plaintiff's asset position was stronger than those beneficiaries who had put their finances in issue, and deceased's testamentary wishes favoring other children and grandson were supported by evidence of close relationships and support. The plaintiff's needs could be met from her own assets and income; community expectations and statutory guidance did not require provision in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application dismissed.

Orders

  • Order that the summons filed on 18 April 2019 is dismissed.
  • Directions for parties to exchange written submissions on costs within set timeframes.