Killiner v Freeman

The applicants, Killiner and her sister, brought a claim for provision under the Family Provision Act against their father's estate, seeking equitable shares of the estate. The father, the deceased, had left his estate to his wife and his two adult daughters unequally. The wife received the family home, while the daughters received lesser amounts. The applicants contended that they were left without adequate provision for their proper maintenance and that the deceased's conduct did not disentitle them to a claim. The deceased's wife opposed the application, arguing that the deceased had provided for the applicants as fully as he could and that his conduct did not disentitle them to a claim.

The court had to determine whether the applicants were left without adequate provision for their proper maintenance and whether the deceased's conduct disentitled them to a claim. The court also had to consider the competing claims upon the bounty of the deceased. The court found that the applicants were left with adequate provision for their proper maintenance and that the deceased had provided for them as fully as he could. The court also found that the deceased's conduct did not disentitle the applicants to a claim. However, the court found that the wife's claim was stronger because she was wholly dependent on the deceased and the applicants were not.

The court dismissed the applicants' claim, finding that the deceased had provided for them as fully as he could and that their claim was weaker than the wife's claim. The court found that the applicants were left with adequate provision for their proper maintenance and that the deceased's conduct did not disentitle them to a claim. However, the court found that the wife's claim was stronger because she was wholly dependent on the deceased and the applicants were not. The court held that the applicants were not left without adequate provision for their proper maintenance and that the deceased had provided for them as fully as he could. The court also held that the deceased's conduct did not disentitle the applicants to a claim. However, the court held that the wife's claim was stronger because she was wholly dependent on the deceased and the applicants were not. The applicants' claim was dismissed.