NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Bartkus v Bartkus [2010] NSWSC 889
HEARING DATE(S) : 6 August 2010
JUDGMENT DATE : 12 August 2010
JUDGMENT OF : Ball J
DECISION : 1. Proceedings dismissed. 2. No order for costs.
CATCHWORDS : FAMILY PROVISION - competing needs of plaintiff and defendant - plaintiff proposed life estate for defendant with remainder to plaintiff - needs of defendant required an order that she be entitled to entire estate. COSTS - family provision - plaintiff's case failed because of size of estate and competing needs - plaintiff tried to accommodate these needs in proposed orders - no order as to costs
LEGISLATION CITED : Family Provision Act 1982
CATEGORY : Principal judgment
Borham v Montague [2006] NSWSC 1289 Carey v Robson [2009] NSWSC 1199. Carroll v Cowburn [2002] NSWSC 248 Crisp v Burns Philp Trustee Co Ltd, Holland J, SCNSW, 18 December 1979, unreported CASES CITED : Golosky v Golosky, NSWCA, 5 October 1993, unreported Moussa v Moussa [2006] NSWSC 509 Singer v Berghouse (No. 2) [1994] HCA 40; (1994) 181 CLR 201 The Pontifical Society for the Propogation of the Faith and St Charles Seminary, Perth v Scales (1962) 107 CLR 9 at 19 Vigolo v Bostin [2005] HCA 11; (2005) 221 CLR 191
Naomi Bartkus (Plaintiff) PARTIES : Nijole Bartkus (First Defendant) Garry Neville Penhall (Second Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2009/290197
COUNSEL : M Young (Plaintiff) B Townsend (Defendants)
SOLICITORS : Lyons and Lyons (Plaintiff) Rizos & Associates (Defendants)
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