NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Moxey v Bass [2016] NSWSC 1022 Hearing dates: 22 and 23 June 2016 Date of orders: 26 July 2016 Decision date: 26 July 2016 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Hallen J Decision: The Court: (a) Directs the parties to prepare Short Minutes of Order that reflect these reasons. (b) Stands the proceedings over for the making of orders in favour of the Plaintiff, which reflect the reasons for judgment, to enable the Defendant to precisely identify the time required to satisfy the order for provision to be made in favour of the Plaintiff, any interest thereon, and any costs ordered to be paid out of the estate and, if necessary, to determine how the costs are to be borne. Catchwords: SUCCESSION – FAMILY PROVISION – Claim for family provision order under Part 3.2 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) by child of the deceased – The Defendants are the executors of the Will of the deceased – Probate granted – Second Defendant the sole beneficiary of the major asset - Whether adequate and proper provision not made in Will of the deceased for the Plaintiff – Nature and quantum of provision, if any, that ought to be made for the Plaintiff. Legislation Cited: Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW) Succession Act 2006 (NSW) Cases Cited: Andrew v Andrew [2012] NSWCA 308; 81 NSWLR 656 Boettcher v Driscoll [2014] SASC 86; 119 SASR 523 Bosch v Perpetual Trustee Co (Ltd) [1983] AC 463 Collicoat v McMillan [1999] 3 VR 803 Cooper v Dungan (1976) 50 ALJR 539 de Angelis v de Angelis [2003] VSC 432 at [45] Diver v Neal [2009] NSWCA 54 Flathaug v Weaver [2003] NZFLR 730 Gorton v Parks (1989) 17 NSWLR 1 Hinderry v Hinderry [2016] NSWSC 780 Hunter v Hunter (1987) 8 NSWLR 573 Kohari v Snow [2013] NSWSC 452 Mallet v Mallet [1984] HCA 21; 156 CLR 605 McCosker v McCosker [1957] HCA 82; 97 CLR 566 Pang v Fong [2014] NSWSC 1425 Phillips v James [2014] NSWCA 4; 85 NSWLR 619 Powell v Powell [2016] NSWSC 947 R (on the application of M) v Slough Borough Council [2008] UKHL 52; 1 WLR 1808 Singer v Berghouse [1994] HCA 40; 181 CLR 201 Stewart v Stewart [2015] QSC 238 Stott v Cook (1960) 33 ALJR 447 Tobin v Ezekiel [2012] NSWCA 285; 83 NSWLR 757 Underwood v Gaudron [2015] NSWCA 269 Verzar v Verzar [2012] NSWSC 1380 Verzar v Verzar [2014] NSWCA 45 Vigolo v Bostin [2005] HCA 11; 221 CLR 191 Vincent v Lewis [2006] NZFLR 812 White v Barron [1980] HCA 14; 144 CLR 431 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Geofrey Alan Moxey (Plaintiff) Margaret Irene Bass (first Defendant) Graeme Laurence Moxey (second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr A Hill (Plaintiff) Mr D Liebhold (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