Legal Research
Cases
Oates v Oates

Oates v Oates

Case [2025] NSWSC 548 29 May 2025

Family Provision Order

Nominal Estate

Notional Estate

Succession Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Oates v Oates [2025] NSWSC 548
Hearing dates: 17 – 20 March 2025
Date of orders: 29 May 2025
Decision date: 29 May 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Family Provision List
Before: Brereton J
Decision:
See [137]-[140]

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION – where the plaintiff is the adult child of the deceased – where the defendant is the widow of the deceased – where the plaintiff is not the issue of the defendant – where the plaintiff seeks a family provision order for his maintenance, education or advancement in life – where the deceased died intestate – where the estate of the deceased is nominal – whether to designate property as notional estate of the deceased to satisfy family provision and costs orders – where the plaintiff is entitled to a family provision order – where notional estate orders are granted.

Legislation Cited:
Succession Act 2006 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Baker v Baker [2024] NSWSC 559
Benz v Armstrong; Benz v Armstrong; Benz v Armstrong [2022] NSWSC 534
Clarke v Clarke [2022] NSWSC 1721
Dmitrovic v Kleut [2024] NSWSC 1541
Gargano v Coves [2018] NSWSC 985
Graham v Vukic [2020] NSWSC 1801
Hampson v Hampson (2010) 5 ASTLR 116; [2010] NSWCA 359
Hancock, Shaun v Parker; Hancock, Lisa v Parker [2017] NSWSC 759
Hughes v National Trustees Executors and Agency Co of Australasia Ltd (1979) 143 CLR 134; [1979] HCA 2
Phillips v James (2014) 85 NSWLR 619; [2014] NSWCA 4
Portis v Green [2017] NSWSC 1489
Sarant v Sarant [2020] NSWSC 1686
Steinmetz v Shannon (2019) 99 NSWLR 687;
[2019] NSWCA 114
Stone v Stone [2019] NSWSC 233
Vigolo v Bostin (2005) 221 CLR 191; [2005] HCA 11
Weyman v Erdi (Supreme Court (NSW), Bryson J, 3 August 1993, unrep)
Xiang bht Cao v Tong [2021] NSWSC 44

Texts Cited:
N.A.

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: A T Oates (plaintiff)
J M Oates (defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
A F Stevens (plaintiff)
R Bianchi (defendant)
Solicitors:
Aubrey Brown Lawyers (plaintiff)
Ryan & Ryan Lawyers (defendant)

File Number(s): 2023/285256
Publication restriction: N.A.

JUDGMENT

Introduction

These proceedings concern a claim by the plaintiff, Mr Aaron Oates, for provision for his maintenance, education and advancement in life out of a notional estate of his father, Mr Steven Oates, who died intestate on 3 October 2022. The defendant is Mrs Jan Oates, who was Steven’s wife and Aaron’s stepmother. [1]
1. Where it is convenient and without any disrespect, I will refer some persons by their given names.
Steven’s actual estate is nominal. At the date of the hearing, the gross distributable estate was $3,443.62. There are two relevant assets that are the subject of an application for designation as notional estate. The first is Steven’s interest as a joint tenant of a property located in Bateau Bay, on the central coast of New South Wales. That interest passed to Jan on his death by the right of survivorship. The property is worth about $1.1m and Jan continues…

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 Oates v Oates

Details

AGLC: Oates v Oates [2025] NSWSC 548
Case: [2025] NSWSC 548
Decision Date: 29 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Oates v Oates, the plaintiff, a son of the deceased, sought a family provision order from his stepmother, the defendant, who was the widow of the deceased and not the biological mother of the plaintiff. The dispute arose from the deceased’s intestate estate, which was of nominal value. The plaintiff argued that he was entitled to a family provision order for his maintenance, education, or advancement in life. The court was tasked with determining whether the property could be designated as the notional estate of the deceased to satisfy the family provision and costs orders.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of family provision legislation in the context of an intestate estate. The court had to consider whether the property could be designated as the notional estate, despite its nominal value, and whether such designation was necessary to enforce the family provision and costs orders. Additionally, the court needed to assess the plaintiff’s entitlement to a family provision order under the relevant statutory provisions.

In its reasoning, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a family provision order. The court designated the property as the notional estate of the deceased, which was essential to satisfy the family provision and costs orders. The court found that the statutory provisions allowed for the designation of the notional estate even if the estate's value was nominal. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the orders were enforceable and that the plaintiff's legitimate claims were met.

The court granted the family provision order in favour of the plaintiff and designated the property as the notional estate. This decision ensured that the orders were enforceable and that the plaintiff's legitimate claims were satisfied. The court's ruling highlighted the flexibility of the statutory framework in addressing the unique circumstances of the case.

Orders