BLADWELL v DAVIS & ANOR [2004] NSWCA 170

BLADWELL v DAVIS & ANOR [2004] NSWCA 170

Leave to appeal refused as the error in the distributable estate did not tip the balance where both claimants and opponents had needs, the estate was insufficient to meet all, and the expense, limited sum involved and lack of any point of principle rendered further appeal disproportionate and not in the interests of justice.

Parties
Appellant: Helen Jean Bladwell; First Respondent: Leslie Ann Davis; Second Respondent: Peter Robert Davis
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Application / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
leave to appeal refused with costs
Legal Topics
Claims of Adult Children, Priority of Widows, Testator’s Discretion, Distributable Estate, Leave to Appeal Discretion
Family Provision Succession Law Claims of Adult Children Priority of Widows Testator’s Discretion Distributable Estate Leave to Appeal Discretion

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Helen Jean Bladwell

Appellant

Leslie Ann Davis

First Respondent

Peter Robert Davis

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Provision Application / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against orders for provision to adult children out of the residuary estate under the Family Provision Act 1982
  2. 2 Whether error by Master regarding the value of the distributable estate justifies granting leave to appeal
  3. 3 Principle to be accorded to claims of widows versus adult children under competing applications for family provision

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal refused as the error in the distributable estate did not tip the balance where both claimants and opponents had needs, the estate was insufficient to meet all, and the expense, limited sum involved and lack of any point of principle rendered further appeal disproportionate and not in the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

leave to appeal refused with costs

Orders

  • leave to appeal refused
  • applicant to pay respondents' costs