Richardson v Richardson [1999] NSWSC 1220

Richardson v Richardson [1999] NSWSC 1220

The plaintiff had not engaged in disentitling conduct, and despite the defendant's strong competing claim arising from her care of the deceased and his wife, the plaintiff's future needs, particularly his responsibility for young children and circumstances not known to the testator, meant the $20,000 provision was inadequate. Because the estate had been distributed, the Eastwood property was designated as notional estate to the extent necessary, and the plaintiff's provision was increased to $80,000 inclusive of the $20,000 already paid.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Family Provision Act in Respect of the Estate of Harry Richardson / Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed; further family provision ordered for the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['adequacy of Testamentary Provision' 'notional Estate' 'adult Child Claimant' 'costs Out of Estate']
['succession' 'family Provision' 'equity'] ['adequacy of Testamentary Provision' 'notional Estate' 'adult Child Claimant' 'costs Out of Estate']

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 in Respect of the Estate of Harry Richardson / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the provision of $20,000 made for the plaintiff under the deceased's will was inadequate for his proper maintenance, education and advancement in life." "If further provision was warranted, what order should be made having regard to the plaintiff's needs, the defendant's competing claim, the relationship between the plaintiff and the deceased, and the size and nature of the estate." 'Whether the property at 1 Russell Street, Eastwood should be designated as notional estate to meet any further provision order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff had not engaged in disentitling conduct, and despite the defendant's strong competing claim arising from her care of the deceased and his wife, the plaintiff's future needs, particularly his responsibility for young children and circumstances not known to the testator, meant the $20,000 provision was inadequate. Because the estate had been distributed, the Eastwood property was designated as notional estate to the extent necessary, and the plaintiff's provision was increased to $80,000 inclusive of the $20,000 already paid.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; further family provision ordered for the plaintiff.

Orders

  • ['In lieu of the provision in the will in favour of the plaintiff of $20,000, the plaintiff is to receive $80,000, of which $20,000 has already been paid.' "The plaintiff's costs on a party to party basis and the defendant's costs on an indemnity basis are to be paid or retained out of the estate of the deceased."...