NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Detheridge v Detheridge [2019] NSWSC 183 Hearing dates: 17 & 18 May 2018 Date of orders: 07 March 2019 Decision date: 07 March 2019 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Slattery J Decision: Order for provision in the sum of $165,000 inclusive of costs made out of the deceased's estate. The provision comprises a legacy of $100,000 and costs capped at $65,000. The legacy and costs will be borne by the defendant's share of residue as to $65,000 and by Simone Detheridge's share of residue as to $100,000. The defendant's costs will be paid out of the estate on the indemnity basis. Catchwords: SUCCESSION – family provision – Succession Act, Chapter 3 – deceased dies leaving three children, a daughter and two sons – the deceased's estate comprises of a single residential house property in suburban Sydney and a one third interest in the house occupied by the daughter and used by her as a music studio – the plaintiff is the deceased's youngest son – the defendant executor is the deceased's eldest son – the deceased left her one third interest in the property occupied by her daughter to the daughter and thereafter gave some small legacies to her grandchildren and then gave the residue of her estate to each of her three children in equal shares – the plaintiff claims that his present financial needs are such that he should have further provision out of the deceased's estate – the defendant and the daughter contend that their own financial needs are such that the will should remain undisturbed and no order for provision should be made - whether the plaintiff has been left without adequate provision for his maintenance, education or advancement in life – whether any further provision should be made for the plaintiff out of the estate of the deceased – if further provision should be made for the plaintiff, what is the nature and quantum of that provision. Legislation Cited: Succession Act 2006, ss 66, 99(1) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, Pt 42.4(1) Cases Cited: Askew v Askew [2015] NSWSC 192 Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137 Baychek v Baychek [2010] NSWSC 987 Cangia v Cangia [2008] VSC 455 Drury v Smith [2012] NSWSC 1067 DW v RW (No 2) [2013] QDC 189 Evans v Levy [2011] NSWCA 125 Nudd v Mannix [2009] NSWCA 327 Singer v Berghouse (No. 2) (1994) 181 CLR 201 Sergi (bnf Solowiej) v Sergi [2012] WASC 18 Sweaney & Anor v Bailie [2017] QDC 295 Taylor v Farrugia [2009] NSWSC 801 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Plaintiff: Craig Richard Detheridge Defendant: Dean John Detheridge
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