Page v Page [2016] NSWSC 1218

Page v Page [2016] NSWSC 1218

The plaintiff did not establish that he was a person wholly or partly dependent on the deceased for the purposes of s 57(1)(e) of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW); therefore, he was not an eligible person. Even if he had, there were no factors warranting the making of the application: the plaintiff’s motivation was more directed at reparation/compensation for alleged abuse, and his conduct was such that he was not a natural object of testamentary recognition in accordance with community standards.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Application (succession) / Judgment After Final Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiff's Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
['family Provision' 'eligibility Under Succession Act 2006 (nsw)' 'dependency' 'testamentary Intention' 'effect of Sexual Abuse Allegations in Provision Applications']
['succession Law' 'equity'] ['family Provision' 'eligibility Under Succession Act 2006 (nsw)' 'dependency' 'testamentary Intention' 'effect of Sexual Abuse Allegations in Provision Applications']

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 Application (succession) / Judgment After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff is an eligible person under s 57(1)(e) of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW)' 'Whether there are factors warranting the making of the application' 'Whether the will’s provision (no provision) for the plaintiff was adequate/proper' 'Relevance and effect of allegations of sexual abuse by the deceased against the plaintiff']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff did not establish that he was a person wholly or partly dependent on the deceased for the purposes of s 57(1)(e) of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW); therefore, he was not an eligible person. Even if he had, there were no factors warranting the making of the application: the plaintiff’s motivation was more directed at reparation/compensation for alleged abuse, and his conduct was such that he was not a natural object of testamentary recognition in accordance with community standards.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's Summons dismissed

Orders

  • ["Orders that the Plaintiff's Summons be dismissed." 'Orders that any argument as to the costs of the proceeding be listed on a date to be arranged when these reasons are published.' 'The Exhibits should be dealt with in accordance with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 following the determination of the costs...