NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Poulos v Pellicer In the Estate of Culina [2004] NSWSC 504 HEARING DATE(S) : 31 May 2004 JUDGMENT DATE : 11 June 2004
JURISDICTION: Equity Division Probate List JUDGMENT OF : Windeyer J at 1 DECISION : Defendant has no interest in proceedings - defence struck out.
CATCHWORDS : SUCCESSION - probate and letters of administration - application for letters of administration cta - general caveat filed by defendant against a grant in the estate - caveator white of son of deceased involved in Family Law proceedings against son - son not entitled to benefit under last will of motion but sole beneficiary under earlier will - son did not intend to challenge later will or claim provision under Family Provision Act - evidence, casting doubt on validity of last will sufficient for contested proceedings if caveator had an interest - order for contested proceedings raising the question of interest - interest issue tried as separate question - if son took whole estate of his mother very big fund available out of which Family Court could, if appropriate, order provision for wife - whether caveator wife had interest entitling her to contest proceedings - STATUTES - interpretation - Wills Probate and Administration Act 1898 s144 - proper meaning of "any person" Family Provision Act 1982 Family Law Act 1975 s106B LEGISLATION CITED : Wills Probate and Administration Act 1898 s144 Williams and Mortimer: Executors Administrators and Probate 3rd Edition at page 339 Mortimer on Probate 2nd Edition at page 533 Arbuz v Sanderson (unreported Waddell J 24 March 1986) Bascombe v Harrison (1849) 2 Rob Ecc 118; 163 ER 1262; Dixon and Dickenson v. Allinson and Wife [1864] 3 Sw & Tr 572 Gertsch v Roberts (1993) 35 NSWLR 631. Hendy v Jenkins (1900) Vol XXI NSWR (Bankruptcy and Probate cases) 43 Hogarth v Johnson (1987) 2 Qd R 383) Hughes v Public Trustee (unreported NSWCA 19 August 1980; In Re Devoy: Fitzgerald v Fitzgerald [1943] Qd R 137 In re Seymour [1934] VLR 136 In the Goods of Crause [1858] 1 Sw & Tr 146; 164 ER 668 CASES CITED : Kipping v Ash [1845] 1 Rob Ecc 270; 163 ER 1035 Lindsay v Lindsay (1872) 42 LJ P & M 32 Lindsay v Lindsay (1872) 42 LR P & M 32 Menzies v Pulbrook [1841] 2 Curt 845; 163 ER 605 Official Receiver in Bankruptcy v Schultz (1990) 170 CLR 306 Partington v Attorney General [1869] LR 4 HL 100 Re Devon; Fitzgerald v Fitzgerald [1943] SR Qd 137; Re the Estate of Aaldert Van Den Berg deceased [1999] ACTSC 82 The will and codicils of Simeon [1910] VLR 335 Whiteley v Clune: the estate of Brett Whiteley (unreported Powell J 19 March 1993) Will of Adcock (1905) 10 ALR 268 PARTIES : Archibold George Poulos (Plaintiff) Delores Pellicer (Defendant) FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 110253 of 2002 COUNSEL : Mr C M Simpson (Plaintiff) Mr M D Broun QC (Defendant) SOLICITORS : Cameron Gillingham & Boyd (Plaintiff) John R Quinn & Co (Defendant)
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