Neale v Neale [2013] NSWSC 983

Neale v Neale [2013] NSWSC 983

The Wills and financial circumstances of Peter Arthur Neale and Lorraine Margaret Neale were not relevant to the Plaintiffs' family provision claims because any potential inheritance was speculative, the alleged testamentary intentions were only historical expressions of intention, a will has no legal effect until death and may be changed, there was no evidence of current testamentary intentions, age or health, and the Plaintiffs had no entitlement to, control over, or relative certainty of receipt of the third parties' property. The subpoenas therefore did not seek sufficiently relevant documents and should be set aside.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Proceedings; Notice of Motion to Set Aside Subpoenas to Produce / Procedural Ruling on Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion Filed 17 June 2013
Outcome
Each subpoena was set aside and the Defendant was ordered to pay the Plaintiffs' costs of the notice of motion, with such costs permitted to be paid out of the deceased's estate.
Legal Topics
['family Provision Order' 'subpoena to Produce' 'relevance of Documents' 'prospective Inheritance' 'financial Resource' 'third Party Financial Documents']
['succession' 'evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['family Provision Order' 'subpoena to Produce' 'relevance of Documents' 'prospective Inheritance' 'financial Resource' 'third Party Financial Documents']

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

Family Provision Proceedings; Notice of Motion to Set Aside Subpoenas to Produce / Procedural Ruling on Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion Filed 17 June 2013

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether subpoenas to Peter Arthur Neale and Lorraine Margaret Neale should be set aside under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 rule 33.4.' "Whether the Plaintiffs' potential inheritance from living third parties was relevant to their claims for family provision orders." 'Whether a potential inheritance from living third parties was a financial resource of the Plaintiffs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Wills and financial circumstances of Peter Arthur Neale and Lorraine Margaret Neale were not relevant to the Plaintiffs' family provision claims because any potential inheritance was speculative, the alleged testamentary intentions were only historical expressions of intention, a will has no legal effect until death and may be changed, there was no evidence of current testamentary intentions, age or health, and the Plaintiffs had no entitlement to, control over, or relative certainty of receipt of the third parties' property. The subpoenas therefore did not seek sufficiently relevant documents and should be set aside.

Court Disposition

Each subpoena was set aside and the Defendant was ordered to pay the Plaintiffs' costs of the notice of motion, with such costs permitted to be paid out of the deceased's estate.

Orders

  • ['Each of the subpoenas referred to in the notice of motion filed 17 June 2013 is set aside.' "The Defendant is to pay the Plaintiffs' costs of the notice of motion but such costs may be paid out of the deceased's estate."]