Cassaniti v Cassaniti [2008] NSWSC 258
The plaintiff was not a person in financial need warranting the making of an order for provision under the Act, considering his assets, forthcoming inheritance, and lack of significant contribution or relationship with the deceased. The $5,000 legacy was not inadequate for proper maintenance and advancement in life.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 14 March 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Family Provision Application / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Family provision claim dismissed. Trustees for sale of Campsie property appointed.
- Legal Topics
- ['family Provision' 'adequate Provision' 'estate Distribution' 'appointment of Trustees for Sale']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Application / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether Maria Cassaniti made adequate provision for Orazio Cassaniti in her will' 'Appointment of trustees for sale of the Campsie property']
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiff was not a person in financial need warranting the making of an order for provision under the Act, considering his assets, forthcoming inheritance, and lack of significant contribution or relationship with the deceased. The $5,000 legacy was not inadequate for proper maintenance and advancement in life.
Court Disposition
Family provision claim dismissed. Trustees for sale of Campsie property appointed.
Orders
- ['Claims for relief in paragraphs 1 and 1A of the further amended summons dismissed.' 'Clas Einberg and Matthew John Rowe appointed as trustees for sale of the Campsie property.' 'Property vested in trustees on statutory trust for sale under Div 6 of Pt 4 of Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW).' 'Any party may purchase the...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment