VadeLab
AllowedSupreme Court of New South Wales·

Family Provision Orders Granted in Deceased Estates Case

Case No.

Topics

family provisioneligible persondeceased estates

Provisions

Succession Act 2006 NSW s 57Succession Act 2006 NSW s 59

📚 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 first plaintiff was partly dependent on the deceased and a member of his household, making her an eligible person.
  • The first plaintiff and the deceased were living in a de facto relationship at the time of his death.
  • The deceased intended to honor his commitment to marry the first plaintiff.
  • The deceased's children were also eligible persons due to partial dependency and household membership.
  • The deceased's estate was insufficient, requiring superannuation benefits to be designated as notional estate.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The deceased's children's claim that adequate provision had already been made for the first plaintiff was rejected.
  • The first plaintiff's claim to be the principal beneficiary and to leave the deceased's children to fend for themselves was unrealistic.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant family provision orders because the eligible person met the criteria of being partly dependent on the deceased and living in the same household.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Succession Act 2006 NSW was applied, specifically sections 57 and 59.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the eligibility of the person based on dependency and household membership.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may be entitled to family provision orders if they can prove they were partly dependent on the deceased and lived in the same household.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of dependency and household membership mattered, as well as the relationship between the eligible person and the deceased.

Official source: Supreme Court of New South Wales — this page does not reproduce the decision; it links to the court's own publication. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Supreme Court of New South Wales and is reproduced from NSW Caselaw (© State of New South Wales) under its published republication policy. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.
Family Provision Orders Granted in Deceased Estates Case | VadeLab