Gail Patricia Stone v Michael John Stone [2019] NSWSC 233

Gail Patricia Stone v Michael John Stone [2019] NSWSC 233

The plaintiff failed to make the required full and frank disclosure of her financial and material circumstances, particularly as to her de facto partner, in breach of repeated directions and procedural requirements. This precluded the court from making the evaluative assessment mandated by s 59(1)(c) of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), necessitating dismissal of the claim. The attempted late introduction of evidence was a result of a deliberate forensic decision and would have caused prejudice and delay; accordingly, leave to reopen was refused.

Parties
Plaintiff: Gail Patricia Stone; Defendant: Michael John Stone
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Application / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Family Provision, Disclosure Obligations, Civil Procedure Directions, Admissibility of Evidence
Succession Law Equity Civil Procedure Family Provision Disclosure Obligations Civil Procedure Directions Admissibility of Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gail Patricia Stone

Plaintiff

Michael John Stone

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Family Provision Application / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a family provision order under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) in relation to the estate of the deceased mother
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff made full and frank disclosure of her financial and material circumstances as required
  3. 3 Whether failure to disclose the financial situation of the plaintiff's de facto partner precludes a family provision order

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to make the required full and frank disclosure of her financial and material circumstances, particularly as to her de facto partner, in breach of repeated directions and procedural requirements. This precluded the court from making the evaluative assessment mandated by s 59(1)(c) of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), necessitating dismissal of the claim. The attempted late introduction of evidence was a result of a deliberate forensic decision and would have caused prejudice and delay; accordingly, leave to reopen was refused.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed

Orders

  • Summons is dismissed.
  • Provisionally, plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs, subject to review if application is made within seven days.