On the papers (following requisition and provision of supplementary material)
Date of Orders:
27 October 2025
Decision Date:
27 October 2025
Jurisdiction:
Equity - Family Provision List
Before:
Meek J
Decision:
Orders and notations made finalising family provision claim.
Catchwords:
SUCCESSION — Family provision — Guidance as to purpose, use and content of family tree diagrams or genograms — Encouragement of common-sense approach
SUCCESSION — Family provision — Identification of purposes of appropriate specification of proper names and guides informing specification of names — Practical guidance
SUCCESSION — Family Provision — Practice note — Discussion of introduction and development
WORDS & PHRASES — ‘lagom’ (Swedish)
SUCCESSION — Family Provision — Disregarding of interests under s 61(2)(b) Succession Act 2006 (NSW) — Previous spouses initially unable to be located — Residential address, email address and phone number of one particular spouse unknown following initial searches — Further searches disclosed sufficient information — All relevant persons ultimately served
Australian Bureau of Statistics, “Data visualisation” (Web Page) (see endnotes for accessible link) Australian Bureau of Statistics, “Life expectancy: Latest Release” (Web Page)…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Evans v Evans
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Evans v Evans [2025] NSWSC 1263
Case
[2025] NSWSC 1263
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Evans v Evans, the dispute arose from the interpretation and application of the Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW) in the context of a family provision claim. The deceased, who passed away without leaving a will, left behind a complex family structure involving multiple spouses and children. The court was tasked with determining how family provision should be allocated among the various family members, particularly focusing on the use of family tree diagrams or genograms to aid in the understanding of the relationships and entitlements.
The primary legal issues the court addressed included the appropriate use and content of family tree diagrams or genograms in family provision matters, the necessity of specifying proper names and guides for their creation, and the procedural steps for ensuring all relevant family members are served with legal notices. The court had to consider whether the use of such diagrams could assist in presenting a clearer picture of the family’s structure and relationships, thereby facilitating a more equitable distribution of the estate.
The court provided detailed guidance on the use of family tree diagrams or genograms, encouraging a common-sense approach to their creation and use. It highlighted the importance of accurately identifying and specifying the names of all relevant family members and outlined practical steps for their construction. The court also discussed the practice note on family provision, detailing its evolution and application. In terms of service, the court ruled that if initial searches for a party’s contact details are unsuccessful, further searches should be conducted to locate them, ensuring all relevant persons are ultimately served.
The final orders of the court directed that the family provision claim be re-evaluated in light of the provided guidance on family tree diagrams and the procedural steps for ensuring all parties are served. The court mandated that the executor of the estate conduct further searches to locate the missing spouse, ensuring they are properly served with any further legal notices related to the claim.