Slinning v Sloss [1999] NSWSC 740

Slinning v Sloss [1999] NSWSC 740

Although the plaintiff was an eligible person as a child of the deceased, she had not been left without adequate provision. She was secure as to accommodation and income, held substantial investments, and the further expected distribution of about $155,000 from residue would enable her to meet the repairs, renovations, furnishings and other desires identified in her evidence without resort to existing investments. There was therefore no justification for intervention under the Family Provision Act 1982 and no need to proceed to the second stage in Singer v Berghouse.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Proceedings Under the Family Provision Act 1982 / Final Determination of Summons Filed on 6 May 1998
Outcome
Summons dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs on a party and party basis, with retention arrangements from the estate and the plaintiff's entitlement.
Legal Topics
['adequate Provision for Proper Maintenance, Education and Advancement in Life' 'eligible Person as Child of the Deceased' 'testamentary Dispositions' 'estate Distribution' 'costs']
['succession' 'family Provision' 'equity'] ['adequate Provision for Proper Maintenance, Education and Advancement in Life' 'eligible Person as Child of the Deceased' 'testamentary Dispositions' 'estate Distribution' 'costs']

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

Proceedings Under the Family Provision Act 1982 / Final Determination of Summons Filed on 6 May 1998

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff, as a child of the deceased, had been left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance, education and advancement in life by the deceased's will." 'Whether the Court should intervene under the Family Provision Act 1982 to order further provision from the estate.' 'Whether it was necessary to consider competing claims of the other beneficiaries.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiff was an eligible person as a child of the deceased, she had not been left without adequate provision. She was secure as to accommodation and income, held substantial investments, and the further expected distribution of about $155,000 from residue would enable her to meet the repairs, renovations, furnishings and other desires identified in her evidence without resort to existing investments. There was therefore no justification for intervention under the Family Provision Act 1982 and no need to proceed to the second stage in Singer v Berghouse.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs on a party and party basis, with retention arrangements from the estate and the plaintiff's entitlement.

Orders

  • ['I order that the summons be dismissed.' 'I order that the plaintiff pay the costs of the defendant of the proceedings, such costs to be on the party and party basis, and that the defendant be authorised to retain from the estate of the late Mabel Edna Sloss ("the deceased") the difference between aforesaid costs...