NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Pattison v Mulqueeny [2006] NSWSC 372 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S) : 01/05/06
JUDGMENT DATE : 12 May 2006
JURISDICTION : Equity Division
JUDGMENT OF : Associate Justice Macready at 1
DECISION : Paragraph 43
CATCHWORDS : Family Provision. Application under the Family Provision Act 1982 by a son of the deceased. No matter of principle.
PARTIES : Wayne Gregory Pattison v Maurice Raymond Mulqueeny (Estate of Leah Marian Pattison)
FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 6827 of 2004
COUNSEL : Mr P. Blackburn-Hart SC for plaintiff Mr M. Gorrick for defendants
SOLICITORS : Lees Lawyers Solicitors Wilkinson Throsby & Edwards for defendants
- 1 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION
Associate Justice Macready
Friday 12 May 2006
6827/04 Wayne Gregory Pattison v Maurice Raymond Mulqueeny and Diane Marian Eccleston (Estate of Leah Marian Pattison) JUDGMENT 1 His Honour: This is a claim under the Family Provision Act 1982 (the Act) in respect of the estate of the late Leah Marian Pattison who died on 14 August 2003 aged 79 years. The deceased was survived by the plaintiff, her son and the second defendant, her daughter. The will of the deceased 2 The deceased made her last will on 15 February 2001 under which she appointed the defendants as executors. Under that will she gave her daughter a small farm at Hill Top, New South Wales of some 88 acres, her house at number 6 Holly Street Bowral, farming plant, equipment, motor vehicles and her furnishings. She gave her residuary estate to be divided as to one half for her son, the plaintiff, and the other half to her daughter, the second defendant. Assets in the estate of the deceased 3 Apart from the two properties, which I have mentioned, the deceased had shareholdings in a number of companies. One of these was BHP Billiton in which she held 22,078 shares. On 9 August 2005 those shares were distributed equally between the plaintiff and the second defendant. By the time of the hearing the plaintiff had sold 2,039 of these shares and the second defendant had sold 8,000 of her shares 4 The remaining undistributed assets of the estate are as follows: a. The Hill Top property $445,000.00 b. The Bowral property $395,000.00 c. 1,320 shares in IAG $7,392.00 d. 4,868 shares in One Steel Limited $18,985.20 e. Money in trust $80,768.94 TOTAL $947,146.14
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