
Family judgments from Australian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
The Supreme Court of NSW discharged an adoption order because of an irretrievable breakdown in the relationship between the parties. The Court found that there was an exceptional reason to discharge the order, allowing the applicant to return to their birth identity.
The NSW Supreme Court dismissed an application for provision out of the estate of a deceased parent. The court found that the deceased's will had already made adequate provision for the claimant, rejecting the claimant's request for further provision.
The NSW Court of Appeal ruled that a lower court's decision to grant family provision to a respondent was incorrect. The Court emphasised the importance of understanding the testator's intentions and the moral obligations owed to beneficiaries, ultimately dismissing the respondent's claim for family provision.
The Court granted a parentage order to the claimant, who lived near the border of NSW and Victoria, due to exceptional circumstances. The child was conceived through procedures in NSW, but the parties resided in Victoria.
In this case, the Children's Court ruled that it can only order costs against a party to the proceedings, not against a non-party like a legal representative. The court ordered the mother to pay the father's costs.
The claimant asked for a share of the deceased's estate under the Family Provision Act 1982. The NSW Supreme Court ruled that the claimant should receive the entire estate because the deceased did not make adequate provision for the claimant's needs.
Associate Justice McLaughlin awarded the claimant $20,000 from his late stepmother's estate under the Family Provision Act 1982, ruling that the claimant had not been adequately provided for.
The Supreme Court dismissed an application to transfer proceedings from the District Court to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that starting new proceedings in the Supreme Court covering the same subject matter as existing District Court proceedings is an abuse of process. The claimant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.