Kingwright v Pin [2004] NSWSC 249

Kingwright v Pin [2004] NSWSC 249

The Plaintiff failed to establish she was partly dependent on the Deceased and thus not an eligible person under s 6(1)(d) of the Act. Even if technically eligible, she did not satisfy the additional threshold that there were factors warranting the making of the application (s 9(1)), nor was she left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance, education, and advancement in life. Her lack of frank and reliable evidence further undermined her credibility. There was also an overwhelming competing claim by the Defendant. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Parties
Plaintiff: Natalie Jaye Kingwright; Defendant: Della Pin
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Claim Under the Family Provision Act 1982 (nsw) / Final Judgment at First Instance in Equity Division
Outcome
Plaintiff's proceedings dismissed; costs orders made in favour of Defendant.
Legal Topics
Family Provision, Eligibility of Grandchild, Dependency, Out of Time Application, Competing Beneficiary Claims, Adequacy of Provision
Succession Family Provision Eligibility of Grandchild Dependency Out of Time Application Competing Beneficiary Claims Adequacy of Provision

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 19
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Natalie Jaye Kingwright

Plaintiff

Della Pin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Family Provision Claim Under the Family Provision Act 1982 (nsw) / Final Judgment at First Instance in Equity Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was partly dependent upon the Deceased and thus an 'eligible person' under s 6(1)(d) Family Provision Act 1982
  2. 2 Whether there are factors which warrant the making of the application under s 9(1)
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff was left without adequate provision for her maintenance, education and advancement in life

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff failed to establish she was partly dependent on the Deceased and thus not an eligible person under s 6(1)(d) of the Act. Even if technically eligible, she did not satisfy the additional threshold that there were factors warranting the making of the application (s 9(1)), nor was she left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance, education, and advancement in life. Her lack of frank and reliable evidence further undermined her credibility. There was also an overwhelming competing claim by the Defendant. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's proceedings dismissed; costs orders made in favour of Defendant.

Orders

  • Proceedings be dismissed.
  • Plaintiff to pay Defendant's costs on a party and party basis.