NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Tiedeman v Tilse [2009] NSWSC 234
HEARING DATE(S) : 10 and 11 December 2008
JUDGMENT DATE : 1 April 2009
JUDGMENT OF : McLaughlin AsJ
1. I order that the summons be dismissed. DECISION : 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 Plaintiff be entitled to recoup from the estate of the late Ronald William Wrightson ("the Deceased") the difference between the foregoing costs which she may recover from the Plaintiff and the costs of the Defendant on the indemnity basis. 4. The exhibits may be returned.
CATCHWORDS : SUCCESSION - family provision - claim by adult daughter - financial and material circumstances of Plaintiff - degree of estrangement between Plaintiff and Deceased - statements by Deceased concerning his relationship with Plaintiff - whether Plaintiff has been left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance - competing claim of Defendant (principal beneficiary).
LEGISLATION CITED : Family Provision Act 1982
CATEGORY : Principal judgment
Blore v Lang (1960) 104 CLR 124 Singer v Berghouse [1994] HCA 40; (1994) 181 CLR 201 CASES CITED : Vigolo v Bostin [2005] HCA 11; (2005) 221 CLR 19 Foley v Ellis [2008] NSWCA 288 Diver v Neal [2009] NSWCA 54
PARTIES : Cherie Ann Tiedeman (Plaintiff) Lisa Gaye Tilse (Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 4317 of 2007
COUNSEL : Ms E. Cohen (Plaintiff) Mr J-J Loofs (Defendant)
SOLICITORS : Harris Wheeler (Plaintiff) Craddock Murray Neumann (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