HASTINGS v HASTINGS [2010] NSWCA 197

HASTINGS v HASTINGS [2010] NSWCA 197

The appellant failed to establish that the trial judge erred in applying the relevant legal standards or in the evaluative assessment of evidence regarding the adequacy of provision, causes of financial need, and factors such as conduct and relationship with the deceased. The primary judge’s refusal to order provision from the estate was open and consistent with applicable principles, and no appealable error was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Disposition of Appeal From Supreme Court of Nsw, Judgment of White J, Family Provision Act 1982 (nsw) Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['family Provision' 'testamentary Freedom' 'maintenance and Advancement' 'appellate Review' 'statutory Interpretation']
['family Law' 'wills and Estates' 'civil Procedure'] ['family Provision' 'testamentary Freedom' 'maintenance and Advancement' 'appellate Review' 'statutory Interpretation']

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

Appeal / Disposition of Appeal From Supreme Court of Nsw, Judgment of White J, Family Provision Act 1982 (nsw) Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether provision ought be made from the deceased's estate for adult, able-bodied children under Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW) ss 7, 9" "Whether trial judge erred concerning the appellant's causes of impecuniosity, embarrassment to the deceased, or exercise of discretion to make provision"]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to establish that the trial judge erred in applying the relevant legal standards or in the evaluative assessment of evidence regarding the adequacy of provision, causes of financial need, and factors such as conduct and relationship with the deceased. The primary judge’s refusal to order provision from the estate was open and consistent with applicable principles, and no appealable error was shown.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal other than those of the respondent's application for security for costs determined by Macfarlan JA on 22 September 2009."]