Noble v Durrant [2023] NSWSC 513

Noble v Durrant [2023] NSWSC 513

Although the plaintiffs were eligible to apply as former dependants living in the deceased’s household as children, there were not factors warranting the application: the evidence did not elevate their relationship with the deceased beyond that of aunt and niece to justify testamentary recognition. The deceased owed greater moral obligations to Graham (de facto spouse) and Julie (niece with specific disabilities and support role). Plaintiffs' conduct towards the deceased before her death, and absence of financial dependence or other contributions, further militated against granting provision. Even had there been factors warranting the application, inadequate provision was not established...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Claim / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs' summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
['family Provision' 'eligible Person' 'testamentary Recognition' 'moral Obligation' 'maintenance and Advancement']
['succession' 'equity'] ['family Provision' 'eligible Person' 'testamentary Recognition' 'moral Obligation' 'maintenance and Advancement']

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 Claim / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs were eligible persons under s 57(1)(e) Succession Act 2006 (NSW)' 'Whether there were factors warranting the application (s 59(1)(b))' "Whether inadequate provision was made for the plaintiffs' proper maintenance, education, or advancement in life (s 59(1)(c))" 'If so, whether the court should make an order for provision in favour of either plaintiff']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiffs were eligible to apply as former dependants living in the deceased’s household as children, there were not factors warranting the application: the evidence did not elevate their relationship with the deceased beyond that of aunt and niece to justify testamentary recognition. The deceased owed greater moral obligations to Graham (de facto spouse) and Julie (niece with specific disabilities and support role). Plaintiffs' conduct towards the deceased before her death, and absence of financial dependence or other contributions, further militated against granting provision. Even had there been factors warranting the application, inadequate provision was not established...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' summons dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The summons of Charlotte Noble and Carolyn Noble is dismissed.' 'Liberty to apply as to costs.']