Miller v Ryan; Payne v Ryan [2015] NSWSC 1713

Miller v Ryan; Payne v Ryan [2015] NSWSC 1713

The plaintiffs proved that, as infants, they were members of the same household as the testator between 1946 and 1950, but they did not prove on the balance of probabilities that they were dependent on him. They therefore did not establish that they were eligible persons. In any event, they did not prove factors warranting the making of their applications because the evidence did not show a relationship sufficiently close to place them among persons whom the community would expect the testator to provide for.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Applications Under the Succession Act 2006 (nsw) / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiffs' summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
['family Provision' 'eligible Persons' 'same Household' 'dependency' 'factors Warranting Application' 'testamentary Intention Evidence']
['succession' 'equity'] ['family Provision' 'eligible Persons' 'same Household' 'dependency' 'factors Warranting Application' 'testamentary Intention 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Family Provision Applications Under the Succession Act 2006 (nsw) / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs and the testator were part of the same household between 1946 and 1950.' 'Whether the plaintiffs were dependent on the testator at any time, particularly between 1946 and 1950.' 'Whether there were factors warranting the plaintiffs making an application under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW).' 'If the preceding questions were answered in favour of the plaintiffs, what orders should be made on their applications.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs proved that, as infants, they were members of the same household as the testator between 1946 and 1950, but they did not prove on the balance of probabilities that they were dependent on him. They therefore did not establish that they were eligible persons. In any event, they did not prove factors warranting the making of their applications because the evidence did not show a relationship sufficiently close to place them among persons whom the community would expect the testator to provide for.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' summons dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Orders that the Plaintiffs' Summons be dismissed."]