PERT v NORRIS-SMITH & ANOR [2007] NSWSC 1427

PERT v NORRIS-SMITH & ANOR [2007] NSWSC 1427

The court held that the plaintiff was adequately provided for under the testator’s will, as the share she received enabled her to meet the costs of appropriate hostel accommodation with a reserve of funds available for her needs and contingencies. The court found her contributions to the testator's assets were minor, the quality of the relationship poor, her needs modest, and the competing claims of the testator's daughters significant. Accordingly, further provision was not warranted.

Parties
Plaintiff: Helen Mary Pert; First Defendant: Penelope Anne Rhoades (previously Norris-Smith); Second Defendant: Cassandra Jane Herbert
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Application / Trial
Outcome
Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
De Facto Relationship, Adequacy of Provision Under Will, Testator's Duty to Provide, Maintenance and Advancement, Assessment of Needs
Equity Family Provision De Facto Relationship Adequacy of Provision Under Will Testator's Duty to Provide Maintenance and Advancement Assessment of Needs

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 21
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Helen Mary Pert

Plaintiff

Penelope Anne Rhoades (previously Norris-Smith)

First Defendant

Cassandra Jane Herbert

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Family Provision Application / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the provision made for the plaintiff by the testator under his will was adequate for her proper maintenance and advancement in life under the Family Provision Act 1982

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff was adequately provided for under the testator’s will, as the share she received enabled her to meet the costs of appropriate hostel accommodation with a reserve of funds available for her needs and contingencies. The court found her contributions to the testator's assets were minor, the quality of the relationship poor, her needs modest, and the competing claims of the testator's daughters significant. Accordingly, further provision was not warranted.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed

Orders

  • Summons is dismissed