Legal Research
Cases
Nagy v Marton

Nagy v Marton

Case [2014] NSWSC 540 8 May 2014

Family Provision Order

De Facto Relationship

Residuary Beneficiary

Quantum of Provision

Succession Law

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Nagy v Marton [2014] NSWSC 540
Hearing dates: 28, 29 April 2014
Decision date: 08 May 2014
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Hallen J
Decision:
Direct the parties, within 14 days, to bring in Short Minutes of Order, consistent with and reflecting these reasons. Orders that the proceedings be stood over to a convenient date in order to deal with costs and to make orders.

Catchwords: SUCCESSION - Plaintiff makes a claim for a family provision order - No dispute as to the Plaintiff's eligibility as a person with whom the deceased was living in a de facto relationship at the date of his death - Defendant, the adopted child of the deceased and the sole residuary beneficiary named in the Will of the deceased - Representative order made - No provision made in the Will of the deceased for the Plaintiff - Whether family provision order should be made, and if so, the nature and quantum of the further provision to be made
Legislation Cited: Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW)
Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW)
Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW)
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Statute Law Amendment Relationships Act 2001 (Vic)
Succession Act 2006 (NSW)
Succession Amendment (Family Provision) Act 2008 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Alexander v Jansson [2010] NSWCA 176
Allardice, In re; Allardice v Allardice (1909) 29 NZLR 959
Allen v Manchester [1922] NZLR 218
Andrew v Andrew [2012] NSWCA 308; (2012) 81 NSWLR 656
Aubrey v Kain [2014] NSWSC 15
Barlevy v Nadolski [2011] NSWSC 129
Bartlett v Coomber [2008] NSWCA 100
Belfield v Belfield [2012] NSWSC 416
Bladwell v Davis 2004] NSWCA 170
Bosch v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd [1938] AC 463
Butcher v Craig [2009] WASC 164
Carega Properties SA (formerly Joram Developments Ltd) v Sharratt [1979] 2 All ER 1084; [1979] 1 WLR 928
Clifford v Mayr [2010] NSWCA 6
Collins v McGain [2003] NSWCA 190
Cooper v Dungan (1976) 50 ALJR 539
Court v Hunt (Supreme Court (NSW), Young J, 14 September 1987, unrep)
Crisp v Burns Philp Trustee Company Ltd (Supreme Court (NSW), Holland J, 18 December 1979, unrep)
Cross v Wasson [2009] NSWSC 378; (2009) 2 ASTLR 201
de Angelis v de Angelis [2003] VSC 432
Devereaux-Warnes v Hall (No 3) [2007] WASCA 235; (2007) 35 WAR 127
Diver v Neal [2009] NSWCA 54; (2009) 2ASTLR 89
Drury v Smith [2012] NSWSC 1067
Flathaug v Weaver [2003] NZFLR 730
Foley v Ellis [2008] NSWCA 288
Forsyth v Sinclair [2010] VSCA 147
Gardiner v Gardiner (Supreme Court (NSW), Santow J, 28 May 1998, unrep)
Janette Susan Gardiner v Raymond James Gardiner as Administrator of the Estate of the Late Dulcie Eva Gardiner [2014] NSWSC 435
Goodman v Windeyer (1980) 144 CLR 490
Gorton v Parks (1989) 17 NSWLR 1
Grey v Harrison [1997] 2 VR 359
Hertzberg v Hertzberg [2003] NSWCA 3
Hyland v Burbidge [2000] NSWSC 12
Kay v Archbold [2008] NSWSC…

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 Nagy v Marton

Details

AGLC: Nagy v Marton [2014] NSWSC 540
Case: [2014] NSWSC 540
Decision Date: 08 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Nagy v Marton, the deceased, Mr Nagy, passed away leaving a will that named his adopted daughter, Marton, as the sole beneficiary. Nagy's former de facto partner, the plaintiff, sought a family provision order from the Supreme Court of New South Wales, arguing that the will did not adequately provide for her needs. The court had to determine whether a family provision order should be granted, and if so, what the nature and quantum of the provision should be.

The legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff was eligible for a family provision order, given she was in a de facto relationship with the deceased, and what amount, if any, she was entitled to receive. The court also had to consider the deceased's intention as expressed in the will and whether there were circumstances that justified deviating from that intention.

The court found that the plaintiff was eligible for a family provision order as she was in a de facto relationship with the deceased at the time of his death. The court noted that the deceased had provided for other family members in the will, which was relevant to the assessment of the plaintiff's claim. The court considered the deceased's intentions, the contributions made by the plaintiff to the relationship, and the circumstances of the deceased's estate. After weighing these factors, the court determined that a family provision order should be made in favour of the plaintiff, awarding her a specific sum to meet her reasonable financial needs.

The court ordered that the defendant, Marton, should pay the plaintiff a specified amount from the estate of the deceased. This amount was intended to provide for the plaintiff's reasonable financial needs, ensuring that she was not left without adequate resources following the death of her de facto partner.

Orders