Brown v Cordingley [2007] NSWSC 1338

Brown v Cordingley [2007] NSWSC 1338

The plaintiff was an eligible person, but he had not been left without adequate provision for his proper maintenance, education and advancement in life. Although some claimed needs such as dental work, hip replacement, some vehicle and furniture replacement, accounting assistance, and some house work were accepted as appropriate, the plaintiff was already to receive substantial benefits from the estate, including shares exceeding $1.2 million and likely further residue, producing income sufficient for his current expenses and providing a fund for contingencies. The lifestyle claim for a rural property was not appropriate and was unsupported by evidence of cost. Accordingly, the Court had...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Family Provision Act 1982 in Respect of the Estate of Coralie Lesbia Cordingley / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
The plaintiff's summons was dismissed and the defendant's cross claim was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['adequate Provision for Proper Maintenance, Education and Advancement in Life' 'adult Child Applicant' 'estate Distribution' 'costs']
['succession' 'family Provision' 'equity'] ['adequate Provision for Proper Maintenance, Education and Advancement in Life' 'adult Child Applicant' 'estate Distribution' '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

Application Under the Family Provision Act 1982 in Respect of the Estate of Coralie Lesbia Cordingley / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the provision made for the plaintiff under the deceased's will was inadequate for his proper maintenance, education and advancement in life under the Family Provision Act 1982." "Whether further provision should be made for the plaintiff from the deceased's estate." 'What costs orders should be made after dismissal of the summons and cross claim.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was an eligible person, but he had not been left without adequate provision for his proper maintenance, education and advancement in life. Although some claimed needs such as dental work, hip replacement, some vehicle and furniture replacement, accounting assistance, and some house work were accepted as appropriate, the plaintiff was already to receive substantial benefits from the estate, including shares exceeding $1.2 million and likely further residue, producing income sufficient for his current expenses and providing a fund for contingencies. The lifestyle claim for a rural property was not appropriate and was unsupported by evidence of cost. Accordingly, the Court had...

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's summons was dismissed and the defendant's cross claim was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The defendant's costs on an indemnity basis be paid or retained out of the estate of the deceased in the event that they are not paid by the plaintiff and subject to later orders." "The plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings." "The defendant's costs of the proceedings may be retained by the...