On an application to extend time for a family provision claim under s 16(2) of the Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW), the court may properly consider that the applicant's claim would have been weaker had it been brought within the prescribed period, and that the corresponding improvement in the applicant's position constitutes relevant prejudice to the other beneficiaries. The mere fact that beneficiaries' entitlements under the will have not changed during the period of delay does not mean there is no relevant prejudice. Grounds of appeal in family provision matters must specifically identify the errors alleged in accordance with UCPR r 51.18(1)(e); merely alleging that the trial judge erred in the exercise of discretion is insufficient.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 63 later cases that cite this judgment.
17 of the 63 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.