Hatton v Hatton No 2; Hatton v Hatton No 2 [2012] NSWSC 353

Hatton v Hatton No 2; Hatton v Hatton No 2 [2012] NSWSC 353

The plaintiff's claim for provision was clarified as requesting a transfer of specific property in exchange for payment, but the court found that this did not alter the substantive assessment that appropriate provision was made for the children and declined to alter the orders. Further orders were made to clarify cost apportionment in possession proceedings, consistent with the court's assessment of benefit and fairness.

Parties
Plaintiff: Michael Ian Hatton; Defendant: Tony Edwin Hatton
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment; Consequential Orders
Outcome
Plaintiff's application to vary the judgment dismissed; consequential orders regarding possession proceedings and costs made.
Legal Topics
Family Provision, Variation of Judgment, Costs, Possession Proceedings
Succession Law Civil Procedure Family Provision Variation of Judgment Costs Possession Proceedings

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Ian Hatton

Plaintiff

Tony Edwin Hatton

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment; Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to alter orders under UCPR 36.16 (3A)
  2. 2 Whether the deceased made appropriate provision for his children under the Succession Act 2006
  3. 3 How costs should be apportioned in possession and family provision proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claim for provision was clarified as requesting a transfer of specific property in exchange for payment, but the court found that this did not alter the substantive assessment that appropriate provision was made for the children and declined to alter the orders. Further orders were made to clarify cost apportionment in possession proceedings, consistent with the court's assessment of benefit and fairness.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application to vary the judgment dismissed; consequential orders regarding possession proceedings and costs made.

Orders

  • Plaintiff, Michael Hatton, to pay defendant's costs on the ordinary basis.
  • Orders 4 and 5 in the short minutes of order signed and dated today in relation to Succession Act proceedings.