The concept of 'need' commonly used in family provision cases is not identical to the statutory test of 'inadequate provision' for 'proper maintenance, education and advancement in life' under s 9(2) of the Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW). A reference to the claimant not being 'destitute' or in 'urgent need' does not adequately reflect the statutory test, though such an error will not vitiate the decision if the correct test is ultimately applied. Claimants seeking provision should adduce evidence directed to the statutory criteria, including the need for capital to meet future contingencies, rather than relying on general assertions of intended use of funds.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.