Hatton v Hatton; Hatton v Hatton [2012] NSWSC 182

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hatton v Hatton; Hatton v Hatton [2012] NSWSC 182 Hearing dates: 15/02/2012, 16/02/2012, 17/02/2012 Decision date: 08 March 2012 Jurisdiction: Equity Division Before: Associate Justice Macready Decision: Succession Act 2006 claim: (1)I dismiss the proceedings; (2)I order the plaintiff, Michael Hatton to pay the defendant's costs. Possession proceedings: (3)Judgment for possession in favour of the plaintiff; (4)I order each party to pay their own costs. Catchwords: ESTATE - Succession Act 2006 - application for family provision order by son of the deceased - defendant son of the deceased - estate left to all four children equally - claim for deceased's property - plaintiff carried out improvements to property - deceased provided below market value accommodation to the plaintiff for over 30 years - possession of property Legislation Cited: Family Provision Act 1982 Succession Act 2006 Cases Cited: Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Michael Ian Hatton v Tony Edwin Hatton Representation: Mr M Bradford - Michael Hatton Mr M Gorrick - Tony Hatton Macpherson & Kelly Lawyers - Michael Hatton Philip Boyce and Associates - Tony Hatton File Number(s): 2010/412773 2011/267556

Judgment 1This is the hearing of an application under the Succession Act 2006 in respect of the estate of the late William Arthur Hatton who died on 18 December 2009 aged 95 years. 2The deceased's wife Lille Hatton died shortly before her husband on 12 December 2009 aged 93 years. 3The deceased was survived by four of his five children. One child, Michael Hatton, is the plaintiff in these proceedings. Another child, Tony Hatton, is the executor and defendant. 4There are also other proceedings before me in which Tony Hatton is the executor and plaintiff and Michael Hatton is the defendant. They are possession proceedings brought by Tony to recover possession of the main asset in the estate, the deceased's home, which is still occupied by Michael. I have made orders that the proceedings be heard together and the evidence in one is evidence in the other.