Fairfield v Williams [2005] NSWSC 421

Fairfield v Williams [2005] NSWSC 421

Although the plaintiff was an eligible person and the Court did not diminish her claim because of her difficult relationship with the deceased, she and her husband had substantial assets of over $2.5 million, a good income stream, no dependent children, and no evidence establishing a need for provision. She was therefore not left without adequate and proper provision for her maintenance, education and advancement in life, so the proceedings were dismissed. Because the defendant had made an offer of compromise that the plaintiff did not accept, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs on a party/party basis up to 24 December 2004 and on an indemnity basis from 25 December 2004.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Family Provision Act in Respect of the Estate of Violet Mary Griffiths, Deceased / Judgment
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed.
Legal Topics
['claim by Daughter Left Out of Will' 'adequate and Proper Provision' 'eligibility' 'costs Following Offer of Compromise']
['succession' 'family Provision' 'costs'] ['claim by Daughter Left Out of Will' 'adequate and Proper Provision' 'eligibility' 'costs Following Offer of Compromise']

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

Application Under the Family Provision Act in Respect of the Estate of Violet Mary Griffiths, Deceased / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff, as a daughter of the deceased, was left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance, education and advancement in life.' 'Whether the Court should make a family provision order from the estate.' "What costs order should be made after the plaintiff failed and did not accept the defendant's offer of compromise."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiff was an eligible person and the Court did not diminish her claim because of her difficult relationship with the deceased, she and her husband had substantial assets of over $2.5 million, a good income stream, no dependent children, and no evidence establishing a need for provision. She was therefore not left without adequate and proper provision for her maintenance, education and advancement in life, so the proceedings were dismissed. Because the defendant had made an offer of compromise that the plaintiff did not accept, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs on a party/party basis up to 24 December 2004 and on an indemnity basis from 25 December 2004.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings are dismissed.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings on a party/party basis up to and including 24 December 2004, and on an indemnity basis from 25 December 2004." "The defendant's costs on an indemnity basis can be retained or paid out of the estate of the deceased."...