Tchadovitch v Tchadovitch

(2010) 79 NSWLR 491; [2010] NSWCA 316

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Succession
2. › Family provision and maintenance
3. › Principles upon which relief granted
4. › Quantum of award
5. › Process for calculating adequate provision
6. › Use of actuarial evidence in determining appropriate quantum of fund to secure income for deceased's wife
7. › Whether 3% discount tables from Todorovic v Waller must be adopted as matter of principle
8. › Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW), ss 7, 9
1. Succession
2. › Family provision and maintenance
3. › Principles upon which relief granted
4. › Relevance of Todorovic v Waller to Family Provision Act matters
5. › Whether methodology for calculating common law damages necessarily applies to family provision awards
6. › Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW), s 7
1. Succession
2. › Family provision and maintenance
3. › Obligation of executors
4. › Duty to provide relevant information in family provision proceedings
5. › Consequences of failure to disclose assets
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Discretionary decisions
4. › Family provision awards
5. › Whether trial judge's methodology involved error of principle
6. › House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Quick Take

There is no principle requiring that the 3% discount tables from Todorovic v Waller always be used in Family Provision Act cases. The choice of methodology for calculating quantum, including whether to use discount tables, actuarial evidence, or other approaches, is itself a matter of judicial discretion. The methodology for calculating common law damages is not necessarily applicable to family provision awards. Practitioners should also be aware that detailed actuarial evidence in family provision cases may face admissibility challenges and cost concerns in future cases.