NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Megerditchian v Khatchadourian [2019] NSWSC 1870 Hearing dates: 18, 19 November 2019 Date of orders: 20 December 2019 Decision date: 20 December 2019 Jurisdiction: Equity - Family Provision List Before: Parker J Decision: See [213]-[215] Catchwords: SUCCESSION — Family provision — application for provision – whether plaintiff failed to make full and proper disclosure of her financial position – whether non-disclosure a "jurisdictional issue".
SUCCESSION — Family provision — application for provision from potential notional estate consisting of half share of family home – claim by adult child of retirement age – plaintiff's dealings with her own children concerning accommodation not clear on the evidence – plaintiff estranged from deceased but cause of estrangement not clear on the evidence – plaintiff receiving legacy of $10,000 – whether proper provision– what provision ought to be made.
SUCCESSION — Family provision — application for provision from notional estate – whether appropriate to designate property as notional estate – whether proposed designation would interfere with defendant's "reasonable expectations". Legislation Cited: Succession Act 2006 (NSW), ss 59, 60, 87, 89 and 91 UCPR, r 7.10(2)(b) Cases Cited: Anderson v Hill [2017] NSWSC 1149 Forgeard v Shanahan (1994) 35 NSWLR 206; (1994) NSW ConvR 55-723 Hughes v National Trustees, Executors and Agency Co of Australasia Ltd (1979) CLR 134; [1979] HCA 2 Ikonomou v Panagopoulos [2017] NSWSC 1805 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8 Kohari v NSW Trustee & Guardian [2017] NSWSC 1080 McCosker v McCosker (1957) 97 CLR 566; [1957] HCA 82 Phillips v James (2014) 85 NSWLR 619; [2014] NSWCA 4 Vigolo v Bostin (2005) 221 CLR 191; [2005] HCA 11 Texts Cited: J D Heydon and M J Leeming, Jacobs' Law of Trusts in Australia (8th edition, 2016, LexisNexis Butterworths) at [23-15] Category: Principal judgment Parties: Vanoush Megerditchian (Plaintiff) Hampartzoum Khatchadourian (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: V R Gray (Plaintiff) C Wood SC / P Muscat (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