Stollery v Stollery

Case

[2016] NSWSC 54

11 February 2016


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Stollery v Stollery [2016] NSWSC 54 [2016] NSWSC 54 11 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stollery v Stollery involved a claim by an adult son for family provision from his father's estate. The father had left the son a nominal legacy and a significant proportion of the estate to his grandchildren. The son had been estranged from his father for over twenty years. The son made a claim for family provision, but he did not disclose his full financial position. The court needed to decide whether the father had made adequate provision for the son and whether the son had discharged the onus of proving that he had not been adequately provided for.

The legal issues in this case were whether the father had made adequate provision for the son and whether the son had discharged his onus of proving that he had not been adequately provided for. The court noted that the son had been estranged from his father for over twenty years and that he had not made a full disclosure of his financial position. The court held that the son had not discharged his onus of proving that he had not been adequately provided for. The court found that the father had made adequate provision for the son and dismissed the son's claim.

The court held that the father had made adequate provision for the son, despite the son's estrangement from his father for over twenty years. The court found that the son had not discharged his onus of proving that he had not been adequately provided for. The court held that the son's failure to make a full disclosure of his financial position was a significant factor in its decision. The court also noted that the son's claim was further weakened by the fact that he had received a nominal legacy from his father's estate.

The court dismissed the son's claim for family provision and made no orders for costs. The court held that the father had made adequate provision for the son and that the son had not discharged his onus of proving that he had not been adequately provided for. The court also held that the son's failure to make a full disclosure of his financial position was a significant factor in its decision.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Succession Law

Legal Concepts

  • Family Provision

  • Claim by Adult Son

  • Financial Disclosure

  • Estrangement

  • Adequate Provision

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

4

Penninger v Penninger [2017] NSWSC 892
Speechley v Willemyns [2023] QDC 154
Penninger v Penninger [2017] NSWSC 892
Cases Cited

5

Statutory Material Cited

1

Singer v Berghouse [1994] HCA 40
Nowak v Beska [2013] NSWSC 166
Lajcarova v Todorov [2011] NSWSC 522