NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Stern v Engel [2001] NSWSC 1025 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1146 of 2001 HEARING DATE(S) : 1 November 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 14 November 2001
PARTIES : Harry Phillip Stern (Plaintiff) Cheryl Rae Engel (Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Master McLaughlin
COUNSEL : R. Cameron (Plaintiff) P. O'Loughlin (Defendant) SOLICITORS : Dennis & Company, Solicitors (Plaintiff) Mackenzie Russell & Co, Solicitors & Notaries (Defendant) CATCHWORDS : Family provision - Claim by adult son - Applicant must place before the Court as fully and as frankly as possible details of his financial and material circumstances - Whether applicant has been left without adequate provision for his proper maintenance - Applicant must establish his own case on its own merits - Remedy of his financial and material circumstances reposes solely with applicant LEGISLATION CITED : Family Provision Act 1982 Bosch v Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd (1938) AC 463 Goodman v Windeyer (1980) 14 CLR 431 CASES CITED : Hunter v Hunter (1987) 8 NSWLR 573 Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201 White v Barron (1980) 144 CLR 431 DECISION : (1). I order that the summons be dismissed. (2). I order that the Plaintiff pay the costs of the Defendant, such costs to be on the party and party basis.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION 1146/01 Master McLaughlin
Wednesday, 14 November 2001 Harry Phillip Stern v Cheryl Rae Engel
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate