Legal Research
Cases
Alexiou v Alexiou

Alexiou v Alexiou

Case [2025] NSWCA 164 25 July 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Alexiou v Alexiou [2025] NSWCA 164
Hearing dates: 26 June 2025
Date of orders: 25 July 2025
Decision date: 25 July 2025
Before: Payne JA at [1]
Stern JA at [2]
Free JA at [3]
Decision:
(1) Appeal dismissed.
(2) The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs.

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION – Family provision claim – No provision made for respondent in father’s will due to estrangement – Whether primary judge erred in granting provision to the respondent – Significance of comparison to provision made for sibling – Whether provision unreasonable and plainly unjust – Where appellant cites failure to give reasons but does not seek remittal – Where litigation costs have severely eroded estate

Legislation Cited:
Succession Act 2006 (NSW), s 57, 59, 60, 63

Cases Cited:
Alexiou v Alexiou [2020] NSWSC 748
Andrew v Andrew (2012) 81 NSWLR 656; [2012] NSWCA 308
Angius v Angius [2025] NSWCA 113
Bassett v Bassett [2021] NSWCA 320
Bradley v Matloob (2015) 72 MVR 194; [2015] NSWCA 239
Chapple v Wilcox (2014) 87 NSWLR 646; [2014] NSWCA 392
Curtis v Curtis [2024] NSWCA 136
Durham v Durham (2011) 80 NSWLR 335; [2011] NSWCA 62
Frank v Angell [2024] NSWCA 264
Golosky v Golosky [1993] NSWCA 111
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Lalic v Lalic [2022] NSWSC 31
McCosker v McCosker (1957) 97 CLR 566; [1957] HCA 82
Mitchell v Cullingral Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 389
Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 110
Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201; [1994] HCA 40
Transport for NSW v Hunt Leather Pty Ltd (2024) 115 NSWLR 489; [2024] NSWCA 227
Vigolo v Bostin (2005) 221 CLR 191; [2005] HCA 11

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Voula Alexiou (Appellant)
Arthur Alexiou (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
L Ellison SC / A Petrie / M Malaney (Appellant)
D Allen (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Urania Zafiris Solicitors (Appellant)
McEvoy Legal (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2025/2803
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Equity Division – Family Provision List

Citation:

[2024] NSWSC 1340

Date of Decision:

24 October 2024

Before:

Lindsay J

File Number(s):

2019/391910

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

This appeal concerns an order for family provision under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) (Succession Act), arising from the death of Con Alexiou (the Deceased). The Deceased was survived by his two children, Voula Alexiou (the appellant) and Arthur Alexiou (the respondent).

The Deceased made three wills after the death of his wife. The will he made in 2008 in substance divided his valuable estate assets equally between the appellant and respondent. The main assets were the shares in two companies, Alexicon and VLN. Each of those companies owned an industrial unit on land in Jamisontown. Under the 2008 will the shares in Alexicon were to pass to the respondent and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Alexiou v Alexiou

Details

AGLC: Alexiou v Alexiou [2025] NSWCA 164
Case: [2025] NSWCA 164
Decision Date: 25 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *Alexiou v Alexiou* concerned a family provision claim brought by the respondent against the estate of his deceased father. The respondent had been left no provision in the father's will, a consequence of estrangement between them. The appellant, presumably a beneficiary under the will, argued that the primary judge had erred in granting provision to the respondent, contending that such an order was unreasonable and plainly unjust, particularly when compared to the provision made for a sibling.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had made an error in granting provision to the respondent, and whether the provision awarded was so unreasonable or plainly unjust as to warrant appellate intervention. The appellant also raised a point regarding the primary judge's failure to give reasons, though did not seek a remittal of the matter on this ground. The court was required to consider the significance of the provision made for the respondent in light of the provision made for his sibling, and the overall circumstances of the case, including the substantial erosion of the estate by litigation costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The judges found no error in the primary judge's decision to grant provision to the respondent. The court implicitly upheld the primary judge's assessment of the respondent's needs and the deceased's responsibilities towards him, notwithstanding the estrangement. The court also ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Appeal dismissed.

(2) The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Alexiou v Alexiou [2025] NSWCA 164

Most Recent Citation

Robinson v Glennon (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 1120

Cases citing this decision · 2 of 2 shown

Pilatos v Whillier
[2025] NSWSC 1221 Para 98

…The principles were more recently considered by the Court of Appeal in Alexiou v Alexiou [2025] NSWCA 164 (Free JA, Payne and Stern JJA agreeing) ( Alexiou CA ), where the Court made further and associated observations (at [50]-[56]):…
Robinson v Glennon (No 2)
[2025] NSWSC 1120 Para 24

…tion is consistent with the practice of the Court. The only decision cited to support the practice was Alexiou v Alexiou [2024] NSWSC 1340 (upheld at [2025] NSWCA 164). That decision does not support the proposition that the Court is in the practice of resolving a dispute between a litigant and their former lawyers…

View all 2 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 22 of 22 shown

Angius v Angius
[2025] NSWCA 113 Para 55

…t and appropriate”: Andrew v Andrew (2012) 81 NSWLR 656; [2012] NSWCA 308 ( Andrew v Andrew ) at [16], cited with approval in Angius v Angius [2025] NSWCA 113 ( Angius v Angius ) at [24] per Mitchelmore JA (Bell CJ and Ball JA agreeing). Justice Mitchelmore in the same passage also cited with approval the descripti…
Frank v Angell
[2024] NSWCA 264 Para 56

…; [1994] HCA 40 at 212; Durham v Durham (2011) 80 NSWLR 335; [2011] NSWCA 62 at [82] (per Tobias JA, Campbell and Young JJA agreeing); Frank v Angell [2024] NSWCA 264 at [107]-[108] (per Stern JA, Bell CJ and Gleeson JA agreeing).…
Alexiou v Alexiou
[2024] NSWSC 1340

…under appeal Court or tribunal: Supreme Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Equity Division – Family Provision List Citation: [2024] NSWSC 1340 Date of Decision: 24 October 2024 Before: Lindsay J File Number(s): 2019/391910…
Transport for NSW v Hunt Leather Pty Ltd; Hunt Leather Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW
[2024] NSWCA 227 Para 45

…peal, senior counsel for Voula properly acknowledged that the principles considered in Transport for NSW v Hunt Leather Pty Ltd (2024) 115 NSWLR 489; [2024] NSWCA 227 at [107]-[108] presented an obstacle to success on ground 5. In circumstances where an appellant is not seeking a remittal of the matter for rehearin…
Curtis v Curtis
[2024] NSWCA 136 Para 62

…An alternative formulation invoked the reasoning of Leeming JA (with whom Mitchelmore JA and Basten AJA agreed) in Curtis v Curtis [2024] NSWCA 136 ( Curtis v Curtis ) at [90]-[92]. In those passages, Leeming JA referred to the duty of a judge to consider all the evidence in the case. His Honour referred to Mitchel…
Hunt Leather Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW
[2023] NSWSC 840 Para 45

…the hearing of the appeal, senior counsel for Voula properly acknowledged that the principles considered in Transport for NSW v Hunt Leather Pty Ltd (2024) 115 NSWLR 489; [2024] NSWCA 227 at [107]-[108] presented an obstacle to success on ground 5. In circumstances where an appellant is not seeking a remittal of the m…
Lalic v Lalic
[2022] NSWSC 31 Para 55

…a “multifaceted evaluative approach that takes account of all the factual circumstances relevant to the application”: Lalic v Lalic [2022] NSWSC 31 at [51] per Henry J, cited with approval in Angius v Angius at [25].…
Bassett v Bassett
[2021] NSWCA 320 Para 53

…sense that it is a prerequisite to the Court exercising its discretionary power to make an order for provision pursuant to s 59(2): Bassett v Bassett [2021] NSWCA 320 at [79]. The word “proper” in s 59(1)(c) is of considerable importance. In Bassett v Bassett at [82], the Court quoted the explanation of this word g…
Alexiou v Alexiou
[2020] NSWSC 748 Para 19

…ale, on 17 June 2020, White J refused to extend that injunction and summarily dismissed the proceedings brought by Costa and Jason: Alexiou v Alexiou [2020] NSWSC 748.…
Bradley v Matloob
[2015] NSWCA 239 Para 62

…oversies must be analysed and resolved”. Leeming JA proceeded to quote from the judgment of Beech-Jones J in Bradley v Matloob (2015) 72 MVR 194; [2015] NSWCA 239 at [75] where his Honour referred to the obligation of the primary judge to “engage with, or grapple or wrestle with, the cases presented by each party”.…
Chapple v Wilcox
[2014] NSWCA 392 Para 51

…blish an affirmative case for displacement by the Court of the testator’s clearly stated testamentary wishes: Chapple v Wilcox (2014) 87 NSWLR 646; [2014] NSWCA 392 at [103] per Barrett JA (Gleeson JA agreeing).…
Mitchell v Cullingral Pty Ltd
[2012] NSWCA 389 Para 62

…e passages, Leeming JA referred to the duty of a judge to consider all the evidence in the case. His Honour referred to Mitchell v Cullingral Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 389 at [2] where Allsop P said that “[t]he competing evidence directed or relevant to such controversies must be analysed and resolved”. Leeming JA proce…
Andrew v Andrew
[2012] NSWCA 308 Para 55

…uld be made by reference to “perceived prevailing community standards of what is right and appropriate”: Andrew v Andrew (2012) 81 NSWLR 656; [2012] NSWCA 308 ( Andrew v Andrew ) at [16], cited with approval in Angius v Angius [2025] NSWCA 113 ( Angius v Angius ) at [24] per Mitchelmore JA (Bell CJ and Ball JA agre…
Durham v Durham
[2011] NSWCA 335 Para 56

…y judge is subject to appellate review on the House v The King standard: Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201; [1994] HCA 40 at 212; Durham v Durham (2011) 80 NSWLR 335; [2011] NSWCA 62 at [82] (per Tobias JA, Campbell and Young JJA agreeing); Frank v Angell [2024] NSWCA 264 at [107]-[108] (per Stern JA, Bell CJ and…
Durham v Durham
[2011] NSWCA 62 Para 56

…appellate review on the House v The King standard: Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201; [1994] HCA 40 at 212; Durham v Durham (2011) 80 NSWLR 335; [2011] NSWCA 62 at [82] (per Tobias JA, Campbell and Young JJA agreeing); Frank v Angell [2024] NSWCA 264 at [107]-[108] (per Stern JA, Bell CJ and Gleeson JA agreei…
Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd
[2009] NSWCA 110 Para 62

…dley v Matloob (at [17]-[18]), which in turn quoted the following passage from the judgment of McColl JA in Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 110 at [66]:…
Vigolo v Bostin
[2005] HCA 11 Para 54

…In Bassett v Bassett , the Court at [86] also drew attention to the fact that in Vigolo v Bostin (2005) 221 CLR 191; [2005] HCA 11, three of the five justices comprising the High Court supported the “continuing utility in this field of discourse of notions of moral obligation and duty”. Their Honours quoted Glee…
Singer v Berghouse
[1994] HCA 40 Para 56

…ppeal, the determination of the primary judge is subject to appellate review on the House v The King standard: Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201; [1994] HCA 40 at 212; Durham v Durham (2011) 80 NSWLR 335; [2011] NSWCA 62 at [82] (per Tobias JA, Campbell and Young JJA agreeing); Frank v Angell [2024] NSWCA 26…
Golosky v Golosky
[1993] NSWCA 111 Para 57

…Singer v Berghouse at 212 Mason CJ, Deane and McHugh JJ quoted with approval the following passage from the judgment of Kirby P in Golosky v Golosky [1993] NSWCA 111 at 8:…
McCosker v McCosker
[1957] HCA 82 Para 53

…ssett v Bassett at [82], the Court quoted the explanation of this word given by Dixon CJ and Williams J in McCosker v McCosker (1957) 97 CLR 566; [1957] HCA 82 at 571-572:…
House v R
[1936] HCA 40

…0 NSWLR 335; [2011] NSWCA 62 Frank v Angell [2024] NSWCA 264 Golosky v Golosky [1993] NSWCA 111 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Lalic v Lalic [2022] NSWSC 31 McCosker v McCosker (1957) 97 CLR 566; [1957] HCA 82 Mitchell v Cullingral Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 389 Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd [20…
House v The King
63 WN 176

…] NSWCA 136 Durham v Durham (2011) 80 NSWLR 335; [2011] NSWCA 62 Frank v Angell [2024] NSWCA 264 Golosky v Golosky [1993] NSWCA 111 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Lalic v Lalic [2022] NSWSC 31 McCosker v McCosker (1957) 97 CLR 566; [1957] HCA 82 Mitchell v Cullingral Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 389 Pollard v R…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Succession Act 2006 (NSW)
57, 59, 60, 63 5 mentions (from Para 3)

Medium Neutral Citation:	Alexiou v Alexiou [2025] NSWCA 164
Hearing dates:	26 June 2025
Date of orders:	25 July 2025
Decision date:	25 July 2025
Before:	Payne JA at [1] Stern JA at [2] Free JA at [3]
Decision:	(1) Appeal dismissed. (2) The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs.
Catchwords:	SUCCESSION – Family provision claim – No provision made for respondent in father’s will due to estrangement – Whether primary judge erred in granting provision to the respondent – Significance of comparison to provision made for sibling – Whether provision unreasonable and plainly unjust – Where appellant cites failure to give reasons but does not seek remittal – Where litigation costs have severely eroded estate
Legislation Cited:	Succession Act 2006 (NSW), s 57, 59, 60, 63
Cases Cited:	Alexiou v Alexiou [2020] NSWSC 748 Andrew v Andrew (2012) 81 NSWLR 656; [2012] NSWCA 308 Angius v Angius [2025] NSWCA 113 Bassett v Bassett [2021] NSWCA 320 Bradley v Matloob (2015) 72 MVR 194; [2015] NSWCA 239 Chapple v Wilcox (2014) 87 NSWLR 646; [2014] NSWCA 392 Curtis v Curtis [2024] NSWCA 136 Durham v Durham (2011) 80 NSWLR 335; [2011] NSWCA 62 Frank v Angell [2024] NSWCA 264 Golosky v Golosky [1993] NSWCA 111 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Lalic v Lalic [2022] NSWSC 31 McCosker v McCosker (1957) 97 CLR 566; [1957] HCA 82 Mitchell v Cullingral Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 389 Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 110 Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201; [1994] HCA 40 Transport for NSW v Hunt Leather Pty Ltd (2024) 115 NSWLR 489; [2024] NSWCA 227 Vigolo v Bostin (2005) 221 CLR 191; [2005] HCA 11
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Voula Alexiou (Appellant) Arthur Alexiou (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: L Ellison SC / A Petrie / M Malaney (Appellant) D Allen (Respondent) Solicitors: Urania Zafiris Solicitors (Appellant) McEvoy Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2025/2803
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: Supreme Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Equity Division – Family Provision List Citation: [2024] NSWSC 1340 Date of Decision: 24 October 2024 Before: Lindsay J File Number(s): 2019/391910