Shelley v Prager

The applicant, Shelley, sought to have provision made for her out of the estate of her late father, Prager, under the Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW). Prager’s estate was left to his wife and three other daughters, with no provision for Shelley, who had been estranged from her father for many years. The respondent beneficiaries were Prager’s wife and three other daughters. The dispute arose from Shelley’s contention that her father had not made adequate provision for her under his will, despite her having a close familial relationship with him prior to her estrangement. The case was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated that the deceased had not made adequate provision for her under the Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW). The court was required to consider the nature and extent of the applicant’s relationship with the deceased, the deceased’s conduct towards her, the financial circumstances of the applicant and the respondent beneficiaries, and the size of the estate. The court had to determine whether Shelley had shown that she was not adequately provided for by her father’s estate.

The court found that while Shelley and her father had once shared a close relationship, the lengthy estrangement and lack of any meaningful contact meant that the court could not conclude that her father had not made adequate provision for her. The court observed that Shelley’s financial circumstances, which were significantly better than those of the respondent beneficiaries, did not support her claim that she was not adequately provided for. The court was not satisfied that the deceased had not made adequate provision for Shelley. The applicant’s summons was therefore dismissed.

The final orders of the court included costs in favour of the respondents. The court emphasised that the Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW) was intended to provide a safety net for those who had been unable to provide for themselves through the deceased’s lifetime, and that Shelley had not demonstrated that she was in need of such provision.