Morton v Mangan

The plaintiffs in this case, both adult children of the deceased, sought a family provision order under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). The defendants, who were the husband of the deceased's sister and the children of that relationship, were the sole beneficiaries under the deceased's will. The plaintiffs contended that the will did not make adequate and proper provision for them, and that they should receive a share of the estate. The deceased had not made any provision for the plaintiffs in his will, and there was no explanation provided for this omission. The plaintiffs also alleged that they had little to no contact with the deceased in the years leading up to his death. The estate was small, and the defendants agreed that the fund held by solicitors would meet any provision made for the plaintiffs. The parties agreed to treat the property as the actual estate for the purposes of the hearing.

The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the will had made adequate and proper provision for the plaintiffs, and if not, what the nature and quantum of the provision should be. The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law on family provision orders and the factors to be taken into account in making such an order. The court also considered the evidence and submissions of the parties on the issue of whether the will had made adequate and proper provision for the plaintiffs.

The court found that the will had not made adequate and proper provision for the plaintiffs, and that an order should be made in their favour. The court considered the evidence of the plaintiffs' need and the deceased's capacity to make provision for them, as well as the other factors set out in the Act. The court noted that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for a family provision order, and that the defendants had not rebutted that case. The court made an order that each plaintiff receive a sum of money from the estate.

The court ordered that each plaintiff receive $50,000 from the estate. The court noted that the estate was small, and that the defendants had agreed that the fund held by solicitors would meet any provision made for the plaintiffs. The court also noted that the parties had agreed to treat the property as the actual estate for the purposes of the hearing. The court considered the evidence and submissions of the parties on the quantum of the provision, and determined that the amount ordered was appropriate in the circumstances.