Barrass v Kaine [1999] NSWSC 245

Barrass v Kaine [1999] NSWSC 245

Although the plaintiffs had little or no contact with their father for many years, the deceased also made no effort to contact them and had abdicated his responsibilities as a father after the 1958 separation. That lack of contact did not deprive the plaintiffs of provision they otherwise established. Given their financial circumstances, and while recognising the deceased's obligations to his widow and step-daughter, appropriate provision was a legacy of $100,000 to Robyn Jan Barrass and $60,000 to Rosemary Gai Stevens, borne proportionately by the interests of Audrey Clare Williams and Judith Joy Messing under the will.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Summons for Provision for Maintenance and Advancement in Life Out of the Estate of Wilfred Victor Williams Pursuant to Section 7 of the Family Provisions Act 1982 / Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Provision ordered for both plaintiffs out of the estate of Wilfred Victor Williams.
Legal Topics
['provision Out of Deceased Estate' 'eligible Persons' 'adult Children' 'estrangement From Deceased Parent' 'competing Claims of Widow and Step Daughter' 'costs From Estate']
['succession' 'family Provision'] ['provision Out of Deceased Estate' 'eligible Persons' 'adult Children' 'estrangement From Deceased Parent' 'competing Claims of Widow and Step Daughter' 'costs From 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

Summons for Provision for Maintenance and Advancement in Life Out of the Estate of Wilfred Victor Williams Pursuant to Section 7 of the Family Provisions Act 1982 / Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether each plaintiff, as a child of the deceased, should receive provision out of the deceased's estate under the Family Provisions Act 1982." 'Whether the lack of contact between the plaintiffs and the deceased should deprive them of provision.' "What provision, if any, should be made having regard to the plaintiffs' financial circumstances and the competing claims of the deceased's widow and step-daughter." 'How any legacies and costs should be borne by the interests given under the will.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiffs had little or no contact with their father for many years, the deceased also made no effort to contact them and had abdicated his responsibilities as a father after the 1958 separation. That lack of contact did not deprive the plaintiffs of provision they otherwise established. Given their financial circumstances, and while recognising the deceased's obligations to his widow and step-daughter, appropriate provision was a legacy of $100,000 to Robyn Jan Barrass and $60,000 to Rosemary Gai Stevens, borne proportionately by the interests of Audrey Clare Williams and Judith Joy Messing under the will.

Court Disposition

Provision ordered for both plaintiffs out of the estate of Wilfred Victor Williams.

Orders

  • ['Robyn Jan Barrass receive out of the estate of the late Wilfred Victor Williams a legacy in the sum of $100,000 and Rosemary Gai Stevens receive out of the estate a legacy in the sum of $60,000, such legacies not to bear interest if paid on or before 25 June 1999, and, if not so paid, to bear interest at Supreme...