This article wiII explore first the divergence expressed judicially in Dillon and Schaefer, then examples of attempts to amend the legislation in the light of prevailing judicial opinion, followed by a consideration of Barns v Barns itself. The final section of the article analyses the decision in Barns in terms of its impact upon existing law and in the context of the broader framework of family provision law. Here the decision is considered under the rubric 'aberration or orthodoxy', located within an analysis of what was the purpose of family provision legislation and the extent to which this is, or could, be expressed in the legislation through judicial interpretation or legislative reform.
|Number of pages||26|
|Journal||Sydney Law Review|
|Publication status||Published - 2005|