Family Provision across Borders

It takes little for family provision claims to cross borders, whether state or national. The property may be located in different places — other states or countries; the personal representatives, claimants or beneficiaries under the will may be from different places; or the deceased may have had a strong personal connection with another place. Any one of those cross-border considerations raises questions of a court’s jurisdiction to deal with a family provision application, or of the law that will apply to it. In this article, we give an account of the principles of private international law — which in this area also apply in interstate matters — that affect family provision claims in Australia. In doing so, we explore recurrent complications with these cross-border family provision claims, including those arising under the cross-vesting scheme and in the federal jurisdiction. While we consider that the current equitable principles of choice of law remain best placed to address how provision should be made from different forms of property, reforms must be made to the equitable principles of jurisdiction if complications raised by the cross-vesting scheme and the possible exercise of federal jurisdiction in family provision claims are to be overcome.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
˜The œSydney law review.
Published
2024-08-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.30722/slr.19652
Primary Topic
Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Family Provision across Borders

Reid Mortensen, Sarah McKibbin
˜The œSydney law review.
Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
article

Family Provision across Borders

Reid Mortensen, Sarah McKibbin
article en

Abstract

It takes little for family provision claims to cross borders, whether state or national. The property may be located in different places — other states or countries; the personal representatives, claimants or beneficiaries under the will may be from different places; or the deceased may have had a strong personal connection with another place. Any one of those cross-border considerations raises questions of a court’s jurisdiction to deal with a family provision application, or of the law that will apply to it. In this article, we give an account of the principles of private international law — which in this area also apply in interstate matters — that affect family provision claims in Australia. In doing so, we explore recurrent complications with these cross-border family provision claims, including those arising under the cross-vesting scheme and in the federal jurisdiction. While we consider that the current equitable principles of choice of law remain best placed to address how provision should be made from different forms of property, reforms must be made to the equitable principles of jurisdiction if complications raised by the cross-vesting scheme and the possible exercise of federal jurisdiction in family provision claims are to be overcome.

˜The œSydney law review.Vol. 46(1)
University of Southern Queensland (AU)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 80%
Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Family Provision across Borders — Reid Mortensen, Sarah McKibbin · ˜The œSydney law review. (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS