Mitar v Mitar [2017] NSWSC 647

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mitar v Mitar [2017] NSWSC 647 Hearing dates: 4 – 7 April 2017 Decision date: 26 May 2017 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Robb J Decision: (1) The plaintiff should be granted a family provision order in an amount of 30% of the value of the estate of the deceased (where that value is as determined in these reasons for judgment).

(2) Parties to bring in short minutes of order to give effect to these reasons for judgment. Catchwords: SUCCESSION – Family provision – Whether adequate provision has been made for the proper maintenance, education and advancement in life of the plaintiff – Whether order should be made granting plaintiff a fee simple interest in the family home and a lump sum – Where order sought by plaintiff amounted to claim for approximately 60% of the estate – Where plaintiff had three sisters also in need of provision.

SUCCESSION – Family provision – Appropriate form of family provision order – Where plaintiff was one of four children of the deceased – Where plaintiff's sister is executor of the deceased's estate – Where plaintiff's other two sisters brought and settled claims for family provision – Where settlement agreement provided for the three sisters to split the estate in agreed percentages following the resolution of the plaintiff's claim for family provision. Legislation Cited: Succession Act 2006 (NSW) ss 58-60 Cases Cited: Alexander v Jansson [2010] NSWCA 176 Buggle v Buggle [2012] NSWSC 1009 Chan v Chan [2016] NSWCA 222 Dimic v Djekovic [2014] NSWSC 1502 Gardiner v Gardiner [2014] NSWSC 435 Golosky v Golosky [1993] NSWCA 111 Meres v Meres [2017] NSWSC 285 Spata v Tumino; Estate of Gina Spata [2017] NSWSC 111 Stewart v McDougall, Unreported, SC (NSW), Young J, 19 November 1987 Thomas v Pickering; Byrne v Pickering [2011] NSWSC 572 Toscano v Toscano [2017] NSWSC 419 Vigolo v Bostin (2005) 221 CLR 191; [2005] HCA 11 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ante Mitar (plaintiff) Maria Mitar (defendant) Representation: Counsel: Dr J Lucy (plaintiff) Dr H Bennett (defendant)