NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Gunawardena v Kanagaratnam Sri Kantha [2007] NSWSC 151
HEARING DATE(S) : 28, 29, 30 November 2006
JUDGMENT DATE : 2 March 2007
JURISDICTION : Equity Division
JUDGMENT OF : Young CJ in Eq
DECISION : Order that the plaintiff receive a legacy of $77,000.
CATCHWORDS : SUCCESSION [321]- Family provision application- Application by disabled adult son- Will grants plaintiff right to reside in deceased's house- Right subject to condition that executors approve any person residing with son- Son's carer not approved to reside with him- Son left without adequate provision- Whether court to take social service benefits into account when making an order under the Act.
LEGISLATION CITED : Family Provision Act 1982
Bective (Countess) v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1932) 47 CLR 417 Chan v Tsui [2005] NSWSC 82 Foster v Lisle [2003] NSWSC 1243 CASES CITED : King v Foster (C/A, 7.12.1995, unreported) Parker v Public Trustee (Young J, 31.5.1988, unreported) Ridge v Public Trustee [2006] NSWSC 400 Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201 Whitmont v Lloyd (Bryson J, 31.7.1995, unreported)
PARTIES : Rohan Hirantha Gunawardena by his tutor The Protective Commissioner of New South Wales (P) Kanagaratnam Sri Kantha and John Udris (D)
FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 6417/04
COUNSEL : L J Ellison SC (P) M A Bradford (D)
SOLICITORS : E H Tebbutt & Sons (P) Thomas & Bisley (D)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION
YOUNG CJ in EQ
Friday 2 March 2007
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