Hayes -v- O'Shannessy [2008] NSWSC 507

Hayes -v- O'Shannessy [2008] NSWSC 507

The Plaintiff had not been left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance. The relationship with the Deceased was of short duration, the Plaintiff had no role in building up the estate, she owned a residence in Brisbane, had income and assets, and had already received substantial benefits including a $350,000 legacy, the BMW motor vehicle, contents, joint account funds, and a $50,000 gift. In those circumstances the provision made was generous and no further family provision order was warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Proceedings Under the Family Provision Act 1982 / Principal Judgment on Summons for Provision Out of the Estate of Rex Charles O'shannessy
Outcome
Summons dismissed; matter stood over for argument as to costs.
Legal Topics
['claim by De Facto Partner' 'adequate Provision for Proper Maintenance' 'competing Claims of Beneficiaries' 'short De Facto Relationship' 'benefits Received During Lifetime and Under Will']
['succession' 'family Provision'] ['claim by De Facto Partner' 'adequate Provision for Proper Maintenance' 'competing Claims of Beneficiaries' 'short De Facto Relationship' 'benefits Received During Lifetime and Under Will']

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 / Principal Judgment on Summons for Provision Out of the Estate of Rex Charles O'shannessy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Plaintiff, as the Deceased's de facto partner, was left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance by the Deceased's will." 'Whether the Plaintiff should receive an additional legacy to enable her to purchase a residence in Sydney.' 'Whether an advance of $50,000 from the Deceased to the Plaintiff was a gift or a loan.' "How the Plaintiff's claim should be assessed against the competing claims of the Deceased's children as beneficiaries."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff had not been left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance. The relationship with the Deceased was of short duration, the Plaintiff had no role in building up the estate, she owned a residence in Brisbane, had income and assets, and had already received substantial benefits including a $350,000 legacy, the BMW motor vehicle, contents, joint account funds, and a $50,000 gift. In those circumstances the provision made was generous and no further family provision order was warranted.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; matter stood over for argument as to costs.

Orders

  • ['I order that the summons be dismissed.' 'I stand the matter over to a date to be fixed by arrangement with my Associate for argument as to costs.' 'The exhibits may be returned.']