Parkinson v Burns [2000] NSWSC 991

Parkinson v Burns [2000] NSWSC 991

The plaintiff was not a member of a household of which the deceased was a member, and any dependency shown by childhood weekends and holidays, meals, washing, groceries, pocket money or emotional association was not significant and was not even more than minimal. He therefore failed to establish eligibility under par 6(1)(d) of the Family Provision Act, so the Family Provision claim failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Act Application Out of the Estate of Daphne May Turner / Final Judgment on Summons
Outcome
Summons dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
['eligible Person' 'dependency' 'member of Household' 'claim by Nephew Against Deceased Estate']
['succession' 'family Provision' 'equity'] ['eligible Person' 'dependency' 'member of Household' 'claim by Nephew Against Deceased 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Family Provision Act Application Out of the Estate of Daphne May Turner / Final Judgment on Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff, as the deceased's nephew, was an eligible person under par 6(1)(d) of the Family Provision Act." 'Whether the plaintiff was at any particular time wholly or partly dependent upon the deceased.' 'Whether the plaintiff was at that particular time or at another time a member of a household of which the deceased was a member.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was not a member of a household of which the deceased was a member, and any dependency shown by childhood weekends and holidays, meals, washing, groceries, pocket money or emotional association was not significant and was not even more than minimal. He therefore failed to establish eligibility under par 6(1)(d) of the Family Provision Act, so the Family Provision claim failed.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs.

Orders

  • ['I dismiss the summons.' "I order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs."]