› Adequate and proper maintenance – adult child claimant – testamentary freedom – no requirement of equality between beneficiaries
Appeal and new trial
› Appellate restraint
› Challenge to quantum of further provision – House v The King error required
Appeal and new trial
› Procedure
› Extension of time to seek leave to appeal – two-year delay – self-represented litigant – no satisfactory explanation – no utility where leave would be refused
Civil procedure
› Summary judgment
› Untenable claims – CEDAW confers no right of action – claims against Attorneys-General and will drafter without legal merit
Quick Take
1An appeal challenging the quantum of an order for further provision under family provision legislation engages principles of appellate restraint and requires identification of an error of the kind recognised in House v The King.
2In assessing adequate provision for an adult child's proper maintenance, education or advancement in life, the court may vary the will no more than necessary. It is not to rewrite the will according to its own ideas of fairness, nor to achieve substantial equality between beneficiaries. An asserted 'principle of equality' derived from the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women does not alter that approach.
3The Convention confers no private right of action. The Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General owe no duty of care to a litigant to conform domestic law to her view of its effect. A will-drafter's duty does not extend to a beneficiary beyond giving effect to the testator's instructions, and a claimed native-title-like right of connection with family properties has no legal basis.
