Claimant Entitled to Modest Estate Provision Under Family Provision Act
📌 In brief
The claimant, a stepdaughter, asked the court for a portion of her stepmother's estate under the Family Provision Act 1982. The court ruled that the claimant was partially dependent on her stepmother and granted a modest provision of $20,000.
⚖️ Legal holding
A person who was partly dependent on a deceased relative during their lifetime may be entitled to a modest provision from the deceased's estate under the Family Provision Act 1982.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
📄 Read the full judgment⚖️ View on the official court website ↗
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The plaintiff lived with her father and helped him over many years, establishing a dependent relationship.
- The plaintiff's financial situation is modest, relying on Centrelink pension and part-time work to cover living expenses and medical needs.
- The plaintiff requested a modest sum of $20,000 for car replacement and house repairs, which the court deemed reasonable.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The evidence was insufficient to prove that the plaintiff lived at her father's residence during specific periods as claimed.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The claimant was entitled to a modest provision of $20,000 from her stepmother's estate.
What was the dispute about?
The claimant argued that she was partially dependent on her stepmother and therefore entitled to a provision from the estate.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the claimant was partially dependent on her stepmother and thus entitled to a modest provision from the estate.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW) s 60H was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The claimant's argument that she was partially dependent on her stepmother during her lifetime was the most important.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may be entitled to a modest provision from the estate of a deceased relative if they can prove partial dependence.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of the claimant's relationship with her stepmother and her partial dependence on her was crucial.