NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Spata v Spata [2011] NSWSC 1221 Hearing dates: 12 October 2011 Decision date: 24 October 2011 Jurisdiction: Equity Division Before: Hallen AsJ Decision: Having found that the Plaintiff is an eligible person and that the provision made for her in the Will of the deceased is inadequate, order that the Plaintiff receive the residence at Belmore and the deceased's interest in the Leichhardt property absolutely, but subject to a charge to secure the amount referred to in favour of the three sons of the deceased equally. The parties should be allowed an opportunity to decide the manner in which the charge will be secured and over which property or properties. If the parties are unable to reach agreement on the manner in which the charge is to be secured or otherwise, I shall, hear further short submissions on the matters remaining in dispute and any consequential orders. Subject to any argument about costs, I would propose to make the usual order for costs. The Exhibits should be dealt with in accordance with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and the Court Books may be returned. The proceedings are adjourned to enable the parties to bring in short minutes. Catchwords: Plaintiff the widow of the deceased seeks family provision order - Marriage of about 30 years - Beneficiaries are sons of the deceased by a prior marriage - Only issue is the nature of provision to be made for Plaintiff Legislation Cited: Family Provision Act 1982 Probate and Administration Act 1898 Property (Relationships) Act 1984 Succession Act 2006 Succession Amendment (Family Provision) Act 2008 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (2005) Cases Cited: Bladwell v Davis [2004] NSWCA 170 Blore v Lang (1960) 104 CLR 124 Bosch v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd [1938] AC 463 Butcher v Craig [2010] WASCA 92 Clifford v Mayr [2010] NSWCA 6 Collins v McGain [2003] NSWCA 190 Cooper v Dungan (1976) 50 ALJR 539 Court v Hunt (NSWSC, 14 September 1987, unreported) Crewe, Re [1956] NZLR 315 Crisp v Burns Philp Trustee Company Ltd (NSWSC, 18 December 1979, unreported) Devenish v Devenish [2011] WASC 129 Devereaux-Warnes v Hall (No 3) [2007] WASCA 235; (2007) 35 WAR 127 Diver v Neal [[2009] NSWCA 54 Foley v Ellis [2008] NSWCA 288 Golosky v Golosky [1993] NSWCA 111 Goodman v Windeyer (1980) 144 CLR 490 Gorton v Parks (1989) 17 NSWLR 1 Grainger v The Public Trustee (WASC, 6 December 1995, unreported) Hughes v National Trustees, Executors and Agency Co of Australasia Ltd [1979] HCA 2; (1979) 143 CLR 134 Kay v Archbold [2008] NSWSC 254 Langtry v Campbell (7 March 1991, unreported) McCosker v McCosker (1957) 97 CLR 566 McKenzie v Topp [2004] VSC 90 Magill v Magill [2006] HCA 51; (2006) 226 CLR 551 Marshall v Carruthers [2002] NSWCA 47 Mayfield v Lloyd-Williams [2004] NSWSC 419 Milillo v Konnecke [2009] NSWCA 109 Miller v Miller [2006] UKHL 24; [2006] 2 AC 618 Moore v Moore (NSWCA, 16 May 1984, unreported) Neil v Jacovou [2011] NSWSC 87 O'Loughlin v O'Loughlin [2003] NSWCA 99 Permanent Trustee Co Ltd v Fraser (1995) 36 NSWLR 24 Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith v Scales [1962] HCA 19; (1962) 107 CLR 9 Pogorelic v Banovich & Ors [2007] WASC 45 Puckridge, Deceased, In the Estate of (1978) 20 SASR 72 Salmon v Blackford [1997] NSWCA 274 Samsley v Barnes [1990] NSWCA 161; (1991) DFC 95-100 Sellers v Scrivenger [2010] VSC 320 Singer v Berghouse (No 2) [1994] HCA 40; (1994) 181 CLR 201 Sitch (deceased), Re the Will of; Gillies v Executors of the Will of Sitch [2005] VSC 308 Stern v Sekers; Sekers v Sekers [2010] NSWSC 59 Vigolo v Bostin [2005] HCA 11; (2005) 221 CLR 191 Walker v Walker (NSWSC, 17 May 1996, unreported) Welsh v Mulcock [1924] NZLR 673 Worladge v Doddridge (1957) 97 CLR 1 Texts Cited: Mason and Handler's "Succession Law and Practice New South Wales" Category: Principal judgment Parties: Gina Spata (Plaintiff) Sam Spata (first Defendant) Robert Spata (second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr J Armfield (Plaintiff) Mr A Hill (Defendants) Solicitors: Coorey & Fitzgerald (Plaintiff) Hunter Lawyers (Defendants) File Number(s): 2010/284663
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