Estate Kranjac; Cadden v Widdowson [2018] NSWSC 285

Estate Kranjac; Cadden v Widdowson [2018] NSWSC 285

The applications failed because, having regard to the applicants' substantial resources, the size and nature of the deceased's estate, and the second defendant's substantial competing claim as the deceased's principal companion and carer who lived in the family home and was intended to have security of tenure, the Court was not satisfied under section 59(1)(c) of the Succession Act 2006 NSW that any applicant had been left without adequate provision for proper maintenance, education or advancement in life.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Competing Applications for Family Provision Relief Under Chapter 3 of the Succession Act 2006 NSW / Principal Judgment After Hearing in the Equity Division, Family Provision List
Outcome
The first defendant was granted an extension of time, the plaintiffs' summons was dismissed, the first defendant's cross summons was dismissed, and costs were ordered in favour of the second defendant.
Legal Topics
['family Provision' 'adult Children Claims' 'adequate Provision' 'proper Maintenance, Education or Advancement in Life' 'extension of Time' 'costs']
['succession' 'equity'] ['family Provision' 'adult Children Claims' 'adequate Provision' 'proper Maintenance, Education or Advancement in Life' 'extension of Time' '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

Competing Applications for Family Provision Relief Under Chapter 3 of the Succession Act 2006 NSW / Principal Judgment After Hearing in the Equity Division, Family Provision List

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first defendant should be granted an extension of time under section 58(2) of the Succession Act 2006 NSW to bring her family provision application.' 'Whether the plaintiffs and the first defendant, as children of the deceased, were eligible persons under sections 57(1)(c) and 59(1)(a) of the Succession Act 2006 NSW.' "Whether adequate provision for the proper maintenance, education or advancement in life of each applicant had not been made by the deceased's will for the purposes of section 59(1)(c) of the Succession Act 2006 NSW." "Whether the first plaintiff retained $26,000 of the deceased's funds and, if so, how that conduct should affect her family provision claim." 'Whether any family provision order could be made without unduly diminishing the provision made for the second defendant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applications failed because, having regard to the applicants' substantial resources, the size and nature of the deceased's estate, and the second defendant's substantial competing claim as the deceased's principal companion and carer who lived in the family home and was intended to have security of tenure, the Court was not satisfied under section 59(1)(c) of the Succession Act 2006 NSW that any applicant had been left without adequate provision for proper maintenance, education or advancement in life.

Court Disposition

The first defendant was granted an extension of time, the plaintiffs' summons was dismissed, the first defendant's cross summons was dismissed, and costs were ordered in favour of the second defendant.

Orders

  • ['ORDER that the time within which the first defendant may apply for a family provision order be extended up to and including the date upon which her amended cross summons was filed.' "ORDER that the plaintiffs' summons be dismissed." "ORDER that the first defendant's cross summons be dismissed." "ORDER that the...