Baird v Harris
Case
•
[2015] NSWSC 803
•24 June 2015
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Baird v Harris [2015] NSWSC 803
[2015] NSWSC 803
24 June 2015
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Baird v Harris involved the Plaintiff, an adult disabled child of the deceased, who sought a family provision order under the Succession Act 2006. The Plaintiff sought the order out of the notional estate of the deceased, who had made significant provisions in their will to a close friend. The estate was fully distributed shortly after the grant of probate, but the Plaintiff's application was deemed to be in time. There was no dispute that the property in question should be designated as the notional estate if an order was to be made for additional provision for the Plaintiff. However, there was a dispute regarding the costs orders.
The court had to decide whether the Plaintiff was entitled to a family provision order and, if so, the extent of the order. The court also had to determine what costs orders should be made in relation to the proceedings. The court considered the statutory provisions of the Succession Act 2006 and the common law principles of family provision. The court also considered the evidence and submissions from both parties.
The court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to a family provision order. The court found that the deceased had made inadequate provision for the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff had a disability that made them vulnerable. The court ordered that the Plaintiff should receive a family provision order of $200,000. The court also considered the costs orders and held that the Plaintiff should receive costs up to the point of the hearing of the application for a family provision order. The Defendant was ordered to pay the Plaintiff's costs up to that point.
The court ordered that the Defendant pay the Plaintiff $200,000 within 28 days of the judgment. The court also ordered that the Defendant pay the Plaintiff's costs up to the point of the hearing of the application for a family provision order. The court held that the Defendant should not be ordered to pay the Plaintiff's costs beyond that point as the Plaintiff's claim for additional costs was not successful.
The court had to decide whether the Plaintiff was entitled to a family provision order and, if so, the extent of the order. The court also had to determine what costs orders should be made in relation to the proceedings. The court considered the statutory provisions of the Succession Act 2006 and the common law principles of family provision. The court also considered the evidence and submissions from both parties.
The court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to a family provision order. The court found that the deceased had made inadequate provision for the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff had a disability that made them vulnerable. The court ordered that the Plaintiff should receive a family provision order of $200,000. The court also considered the costs orders and held that the Plaintiff should receive costs up to the point of the hearing of the application for a family provision order. The Defendant was ordered to pay the Plaintiff's costs up to that point.
The court ordered that the Defendant pay the Plaintiff $200,000 within 28 days of the judgment. The court also ordered that the Defendant pay the Plaintiff's costs up to the point of the hearing of the application for a family provision order. The court held that the Defendant should not be ordered to pay the Plaintiff's costs beyond that point as the Plaintiff's claim for additional costs was not successful.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Succession Law
Legal Concepts
-
Family Provision
-
Notional Estate
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Baird v Harris [2015] NSWSC 803
Most Recent Citation
Niebour-Pott & Anor v Pott [2020] QSC 7
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Niebour-Pott & Anor v Pott
[2020] QSC 7
Jodell v Woods
[2017] NSWSC 143
Hinderry v Hinderry
[2016] NSWSC 780
Cases Cited
77
Statutory Material Cited
8
French Consulting Pty Ltd v Lawson Stuart Donald
[2011] NSWSC 584
Snow v Snow
[2015] NSWSC 90
Samsley v Barnes
[1990] NSWCA 161