NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Revell v Revell [2016] NSWSC 947 Hearing dates: 20 and 22 June 2016 Date of orders: 07 July 2016 Decision date: 07 July 2016 Before: Pembroke J Decision: Summons dismissed Catchwords: SUCCESSION – family provision order – application by 60 year old son of testator – plaintiff already given legacy of $1.5 million under will of deceased SUCCESSION – family provision order – freedom of testamentary disposition – relevance of statement from testator under s 100 of the Succession Act SUCCESSION – family provision order – factors to be taken into account when making a family provision order – court not satisfied of inadequacy of provision made for the plaintiff SUCCESSION – family provision order – how burden of costs of the proceedings to be borne – fact specific – discretion to allow unsuccessful plaintiff to have his costs out of the estate Legislation Cited: Succession Act 2006 Cases Cited: Carey v Robson [2010] NSWCA 212 Ford v Simes [2009] NSWCA 351 Goodsell v Wellington [2011] NSWSC 1232 Grey v Harrison [1997] 2 VR 359 Hinderry v Hinderry [2016] NSWSC 780 Hughes v National Trustees, Executors & Agency Company (1979) 143 CLR 134 Hunter v Hunter (1987) 8 NSWLR 573 Penfold v Predny [2016] NSWSC 472 Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith v Re Estate of Bridges (1975) 12 SASR 1 Scales (1962) 107 CLR 9 Salmon v Osmond [2015] NSWCA 42 Singer v Berghouse [1993] HCA 35 Slack v Rogan; Palffy v Rogan [2013] NSWSC 522 Stott v Cook (1960) 33 ALJR 447 Sung v Malaxos [2015] NSWSC 186 Vigolo v Bostin [2005] HCA 11 Wilcox v Wilcox [2012] NSWSC 1138 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Gary Martin Revell - plaintiff Tova Lambert Revell – defendant Representation: Counsel: Ms V Hartstein – for the plaintiff L Ellison SC – for the 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