Parry v Osgood [2001] NSWSC 664

Parry v Osgood [2001] NSWSC 664

Although an adult child is not ordinarily entitled to provision sufficient to acquire a house, this was not the usual case because the plaintiff and her husband relocated at the request of the deceased and her husband, made substantial payments that enabled the deceased's asset to be maintained, and provided...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Family Provision Act in Respect of the Estate of Isabel Louisa Maud Osgood / Judgment on Application; Orders Made
Outcome
Plaintiff granted further provision from the estate by way of an additional legacy of $35,000, with costs payable out of the estate.
Legal Topics
['adequacy of Testamentary Provision' 'small Estate' 'adult Child Claim' 'competing Claims on Deceased Estate' 'costs Out of Estate']
['succession' 'family Provision' 'equity'] ['adequacy of Testamentary Provision' 'small Estate' 'adult Child Claim' 'competing Claims on Deceased Estate' 'costs Out of Estate']

Source-derived case record

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

Application Under the Family Provision Act in Respect of the Estate of Isabel Louisa Maud Osgood / Judgment on Application; Orders Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the provision made for the plaintiff under the deceased's will was inadequate for her proper maintenance, education and advancement in life." "Whether additional provision should be made for the plaintiff from a small estate, having regard to her financial position, her contributions to the deceased's property, and the competing claim of the first defendant." 'Whether the plaintiff should receive further provision to assist in purchasing a modest dwelling or to provide a contingency fund.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although an adult child is not ordinarily entitled to provision sufficient to acquire a house, this was not the usual case because the plaintiff and her husband relocated at the request of the deceased and her husband, made substantial payments that enabled the deceased's asset to be maintained, and provided long-term assistance to the deceased. In light of those contributions, the plaintiff's needs, and the competing need of the first defendant for some contingency funds, adequate provision required an additional legacy of $35,000 to the plaintiff, with the balance then divided under the will.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff granted further provision from the estate by way of an additional legacy of $35,000, with costs payable out of the estate.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff, in addition to the provision made for her under the will of the deceased, receive a legacy of $35,000.' "The plaintiff's costs on a party and party basis and the defendant's costs on an indemnity basis be paid out of the estate of the deceased." 'Interest will run on the legacy from 28 days after...