Hooper v Rowley [2003] NSWSC 367

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Hooper v Rowley [2003] NSWSC 367 HEARING DATE(S) : 27, 28 March 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 2 May 2003 JURISDICTION: Equity Division JUDGMENT OF : Master McLaughlin DECISION : (1) I order that the amended 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; (3) I order that the Defendants be entitled to be paid out of the estate of the late Ethel Elizabeth Museth ("the Deceased") the difference between the costs of the Defendants on the indemnity basis and the amount of the aforesaid costs which they may recover from the Plaintiff; (4) The exhibits may be returned.

CATCHWORDS : Succession - Family Provision - Claim by adult daughter - Financial and material circumstances of Plaintiff - Plaintiff must establish areas of need which should be addressed by an order for provision. - Competing claim of beneficiary - Practical consequence of an order for provision in favour of Plaintiff would be to deprive beneficiary of her residence. LEGISLATION CITED : Family Provision Act 1982 Testator's Family Maintenance and Guardianship of Infants Act 1916 CASES CITED : Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201 Barbara Elizabeth Francis Hooper (Plaintiff) PARTIES : Mavis Rowley (First Defendant) Patricia Ann Elizabeth Museth (Second Defendant) FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2643/01 COUNSEL : J. Armfield (Plaintiff) M. Gorrick (Defendants) SOLICITORS : Gulley Helene Scerri, Solicitors (Plaintiff) Malouf Solicitors (Defendants)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION