Lindsay John Hunt -v- Perpetual Trustee Company Limited and Anor [2007] NSWSC 411

Lindsay John Hunt -v- Perpetual Trustee Company Limited and Anor [2007] NSWSC 411

The plaintiff has not established that he has been left without adequate provision for his proper maintenance, having received in excess of $212,000 from the estate and failing to provide adequate evidence of need or full disclosure of his financial circumstances, nor explained the delay in bringing the application. The claim is dismissed and discretion to extend the prescribed period is not exercised.

Parties
Plaintiff: Lindsay John Hunt; First Defendant: Perpetual Trustee Company Limited; Second Defendant: Geoffrey Bernard Hunt
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Application / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Decision for the Second Defendant; claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Family Provision Act 1982, Adult Child Claim, Application Out of Time, Adequate Provision, Full and Frank Disclosure, Distribution of Estate
Succession Family Provision Family Provision Act 1982 Adult Child Claim Application Out of Time Adequate Provision Full and Frank Disclosure Distribution 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lindsay John Hunt

Plaintiff

Perpetual Trustee Company Limited

First Defendant

Geoffrey Bernard Hunt

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Family Provision Application / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff, as an adult son of the deceased, has been left without adequate provision for his proper maintenance under the will.
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings should be allowed to proceed out of time, after the prescribed period for making an application.
  3. 3 Whether the benefit received by the Second Defendant may constitute notional estate for the purposes of provision.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff has not established that he has been left without adequate provision for his proper maintenance, having received in excess of $212,000 from the estate and failing to provide adequate evidence of need or full disclosure of his financial circumstances, nor explained the delay in bringing the application. The claim is dismissed and discretion to extend the prescribed period is not exercised.

Court Disposition

Decision for the Second Defendant; claim dismissed.

Orders

  • The proceedings be dismissed.
  • The Plaintiff pay the costs of the Second Defendant.