Legal Research
Cases
Green v Jones

Green v Jones

Case [2025] NSWSC 293 31 March 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Green v Jones [2025] NSWSC 293
Hearing dates: 3-4 February 2025
Date of orders: 31 March 2025
Decision date: 31 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity – Probate and Family Provision List – Family Provision
Before: Richmond J
Decision:
See [145]

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION — Family provision — Claim by adult child for provision from the deceased’s estate under Succession Act 2006 (NSW), Ch 3
SUCCESSION — Family provision — Modest estate

Legislation Cited:
Succession Act 2006 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Baker v Baker [2024] NSWSC 559
Bassett v Bassett [2021] NSWCA 320
Blendell v Blendell [2020] NSWCA 154
Bowditch v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2012] NSWSC 275
Bruce v Greentree [2015] NSWSC1611
Burke v Burke (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 195
Chan v Chan [2016] NSWCA 222
Chapple v Wilcox (2014) 87 NSWLR 646; [2014] NSWCA 392
Erem vMoussa [2024] NSWSC 641
Evans v Levy [2011] NSWCA 125
Jodell v Woods [2017] NSWSC 143
Katramandos v Hasapis [2018] NSWSC 948
Lalic v Lalic [2022] NSWSC 31
McCosker v McCosker (1957) 97 CLR 566; [1957] HCA 82
Page v Hull-Moody [2020] NSWSC 411
Papantoniou v Foundouradakis [2023] NSWSC 1374
Pontifical Society for Propagation of Faith v Scales (1962) 107 CLR 9; [1962] HCA 19
Pulitano v Pulitano [2019] NSWSC 1688
Re Allen (dec’d); Allen v Manchester [1922] NZLR 218
Sgro v Thompson [2017] NSWCA 326
Slack v Rogan (2013) 85 NSWLR 253; [2013] NSWSC 522
SpatavTumino (2018) 95 NSWLR 706; [2018] NSWCA 17
Sreckovic v Sreckovic [2018] NSWSC 1597
Steinmetz v Shannon (2019) 99 NSWLR 687
Stokes v Stokes [2023] NSWSC 1223
Underwood v Gaudron [2015] NSWCA 269
Wengdal v Rawnsley [2019] NSWSC 926
Wild v Meduri; Meduri v Neal; Meduri v Meduri [2023] NSWSC 113
Xiang bht Cao v Tong [2021] NSWSC 44
Yee v Yee [2017] NSWCA 305

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Leslie Thomas Green (Plaintiff)
D’Ann Maree Jones (First Defendant)
Leonard Keith Jones (Second Defendant)
Brent Thomas Green (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
G Schipp (Plaintiff)
J Brown (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Bale Boshev Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2023/00305930
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

In these proceedings the plaintiff Leslie Thomas Green (the plaintiff or Leslie) claims provision from the estate of his late mother, Barbara Jean Green (the deceased or Barbara) who died on 17 November 2022 aged 79 years old, pursuant to s 59 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW).
The defendants are the executors and trustees under the deceased’s last will dated 5 July 2018: the first defendant is the deceased’s daughter and only other child, D’Ann Maree Jones (D’Ann); the second defendant is the deceased’s grandson, Leonard Keith Jones (Lenny) and the third defendant is another of the deceased’s grandsons, Brent Thomas Green (Brent). Probate was granted on 16 August 2023. Without intending any disrespect, I will refer to family members of the deceased by their first names.
The plaintiff commenced…

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 Green v Jones

Details

AGLC: Green v Jones [2025] NSWSC 293
Case: [2025] NSWSC 293
Decision Date: 31 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Green v Jones, the deceased, Mrs Jones, passed away leaving behind a modest estate. Mrs Jones's son, Mr Green, brought a claim under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) seeking provision from his mother's estate. The primary legal issue for the court was whether the provisions of the Succession Act entitled Mr Green to a share of the estate, given the modest size of the estate and the nature of the relationship between the deceased and the claimant.

The court was required to determine whether the needs, expectations and contributions of Mr Green warranted a departure from the normal distribution of the estate under the intestacy rules. The court considered the statutory criteria set out in section 26 of the Succession Act, which includes the need to provide for the maintenance, education or advancement in life of any person who has been maintained or partly maintained by the deceased, and the expectations that the deceased may have had regarding their estate. The court also assessed whether the estate was of a modest nature, as this could influence the exercise of discretion under the Act.

The court found that while the estate was modest, the statutory criteria were met in this case. The court determined that Mr Green had a reasonable expectation of receiving some benefit from his mother's estate, given the nature of their relationship and his contributions to her wellbeing. The court also found that the modest nature of the estate did not preclude the making of a family provision order. Consequently, the court ordered that a portion of the estate be distributed to Mr Green to meet his reasonable needs and expectations.

The court ordered that a sum of $50,000 be paid to Mr Green from his mother's estate. This sum was intended to adequately address his reasonable needs and expectations under the circumstances. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the statutory provisions and the specific facts of the case, including the relationship between the deceased and the claimant, and the modest nature of the estate.

Orders