ANDREWS v HOWARD [1999] NSWCA 409

ANDREWS v HOWARD [1999] NSWCA 409

It was open to the trial judge to find the respondent was an eligible person due to part-economic and emotional dependence. The award was not so excessive as to constitute error, and there was no competing claim justifying interference.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['family Provision' 'eligibility of Same Sex Partner' 'dependency' 'adequacy of Provision' 'appeal Against Family Provision Order']
['family Law' 'succession Law'] ['family Provision' 'eligibility of Same Sex Partner' 'dependency' 'adequacy of Provision' 'appeal Against Family Provision Order']

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 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent was an eligible person under s6 of the Family Provision Act 1982' 'Whether there was a relevant dependency on the deceased' 'Whether the award was excessively generous and thereby erroneous']

Ratio Decidendi

It was open to the trial judge to find the respondent was an eligible person due to part-economic and emotional dependence. The award was not so excessive as to constitute error, and there was no competing claim justifying interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']