Hastings v Hastings [2008] NSWSC 1310

Hastings v Hastings [2008] NSWSC 1310

The plaintiff's claim for provision was refused because his need arose from his own criminal conduct, his conduct brought shame and distress upon the deceased, he had only minimal contact with his mother during her adult life, and the deceased had legitimate reasons for excluding him—factors which meant that no further provision from the estate for his maintenance or advancement was justified under the Family Provision Act.

Parties
Plaintiff: Phillip Hastings; Defendant: John Hastings
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's summons dismissed. Plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs. Paragraph 3 of the cross-summons dismissed. Exhibits may be returned after 28 days.
Legal Topics
Family Provision, Testamentary Discretion, Criminal Conduct and Entitlement, Proper Maintenance and Advancement
Equity Succession Law Family Provision Testamentary Discretion Criminal Conduct and Entitlement Proper Maintenance and Advancement

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phillip Hastings

Plaintiff

John Hastings

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Family Provision Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an order for provision from the estate under the Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's criminal conduct and lack of contact disentitle him from relief

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claim for provision was refused because his need arose from his own criminal conduct, his conduct brought shame and distress upon the deceased, he had only minimal contact with his mother during her adult life, and the deceased had legitimate reasons for excluding him—factors which meant that no further provision from the estate for his maintenance or advancement was justified under the Family Provision Act.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's summons dismissed. Plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs. Paragraph 3 of the cross-summons dismissed. Exhibits may be returned after 28 days.

Orders

  • Order that the summons be dismissed and that paragraph 3 of the cross-summons be dismissed.
  • Order that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings.