Pearson & Anor v Jones [2000] NSWSC 799

Pearson & Anor v Jones [2000] NSWSC 799

The Plaintiffs did not establish that they were partly dependent upon the Deceased. They lived with their own parents, who bore the primary responsibility for their maintenance, care and support, and the Deceased's gifts and benefits were insufficient to constitute partial dependency. They therefore were not eligible persons and lacked standing, requiring dismissal of the summons. In any event, Geoffrey had not established relevant need; Jennifer would have established need and factors warranting an application if she had been eligible.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Proceedings Under the Family Provision Act 1982 / Judgment on Summons After Hearing
Outcome
Summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
['family Provision' 'adult Grandchildren' 'eligible Person' 'partial Dependency' 'factors Warranting Application' 'adequate Provision for Proper Maintenance']
['succession' 'equity'] ['family Provision' 'adult Grandchildren' 'eligible Person' 'partial Dependency' 'factors Warranting Application' 'adequate Provision for Proper Maintenance']

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 Proceedings Under the Family Provision Act 1982 / Judgment on Summons After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether each Plaintiff, as a grandchild of the Deceased, was partly dependent upon the Deceased and therefore an eligible person under section 6(1) of the Family Provision Act 1982.' 'Whether, if eligible, there were factors warranting the making of the application under section 9(1) of the Family Provision Act 1982.' "Whether either Plaintiff established relevant need or entitlement to provision out of the Deceased's estate."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiffs did not establish that they were partly dependent upon the Deceased. They lived with their own parents, who bore the primary responsibility for their maintenance, care and support, and the Deceased's gifts and benefits were insufficient to constitute partial dependency. They therefore were not eligible persons and lacked standing, requiring dismissal of the summons. In any event, Geoffrey had not established relevant need; Jennifer would have established need and factors warranting an application if she had been eligible.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed.

Orders

  • ['I order that the summons be dismissed.' 'I order that the Plaintiffs pay the costs of the Defendant.' 'The exhibits may be returned.' 'Order that the Defendant be entitled to retain out of the estate of the late Edna Annie Pearson the difference between the amount of the costs of the Defendant on the party and...