Patrick v Manning [2002] NSWSC 200

Patrick v Manning [2002] NSWSC 200

The notice of motion was dismissed because the property the plaintiff wished to value was the defendant's residence and not an estate asset, it was relevant only after the plaintiff established entitlement to provision, the matter had long been fixed for hearing on the basis that evidence was complete, no explanation was given for the plaintiff's lack of readiness, and adjourning a small estate matter would undesirably erode the distributable estate. The appropriate limited relief was to require the defendant to provide existing valuation material in her possession or control.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Proceedings Under the Family Provision Act 1982 / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Filed 20 February 2002 Seeking Vacation of the Hearing Date and Access for a Valuation
Outcome
Plaintiff's notice of motion dismissed, with an order for the defendant to provide valuation material and for the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the notice of motion.
Legal Topics
['family Provision' 'adjournment of Hearing' 'valuation Evidence' 'estate Assets' 'costs']
['succession' 'civil Procedure'] ['family Provision' 'adjournment of Hearing' 'valuation Evidence' 'estate Assets' '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

Family Provision Proceedings Under the Family Provision Act 1982 / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Filed 20 February 2002 Seeking Vacation of the Hearing Date and Access for a Valuation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the hearing date of 26 February 2002 should be vacated so the plaintiff could obtain valuation evidence concerning the defendant's residence." "Whether the defendant should be required to provide the plaintiff with valuation material concerning 49 Cessnock Road, North Rothbury in the defendant's possession or control." "What relevance the value of the defendant's residence, which was not an asset of the deceased's estate, had to the plaintiff's family provision claim."]

Ratio Decidendi

The notice of motion was dismissed because the property the plaintiff wished to value was the defendant's residence and not an estate asset, it was relevant only after the plaintiff established entitlement to provision, the matter had long been fixed for hearing on the basis that evidence was complete, no explanation was given for the plaintiff's lack of readiness, and adjourning a small estate matter would undesirably erode the distributable estate. The appropriate limited relief was to require the defendant to provide existing valuation material in her possession or control.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's notice of motion dismissed, with an order for the defendant to provide valuation material and for the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the notice of motion.

Orders

  • ['Order that the notice of motion filed by the plaintiff on 20 February 2002 be dismissed.' 'Order that the defendant on or before 25 February 2002 furnish the plaintiff with copies of all material in the possession of or under the control of the defendant relevant to the present value of the land situate at and...