Contracts to leave property by will and family provisions after Barns v Barns (2003) 196 ALR 65: orthodoxy or aberration?

Rosalind Croucher

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)263-288
Number of pages26
JournalSydney Law Review
Volume27
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2005

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Contracts to leave property by will and family provisions after Barns v Barns (2003) 196 ALR 65: orthodoxy or aberration?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this