Cooper v Atkin

Case [2021] NSWCA 82


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Cooper v Atkin [2021] NSWCA 82
Hearing dates: 5 May 2021
Date of orders: 13 May 2021
Decision date: 13 May 2021
Before: Payne JA; McCallum JA
Decision:

(1)Leave to appeal refused;

(2)Applicant’s notice of motion filed 3 May 2021 dismissed;

(3)Applicant to pay the respondents’ costs.

Catchwords:

SUCCESSION – family provision – claim by adult step-child of the deceased for provision under Ch 3 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) – whether primary judge did not make an order for provision in the applicant’s favour by reason of disentitling conduct – no question of principle

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act2005 (NSW), s 60

Succession Act 2006 (NSW), Ch 3, ss 57(1)(e), 59

Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101(2)(r)(i)

Cases Cited:

Be Financial Pty Ltd as trustee for Be Financial Operations Trust v Das [2012] NSWCA 164

Burke v Burke [2015] NSWCA 195

Christie v Christie [2016] WASC 45

Hartnett and Hartnett v Taylor [2014] VSC 427

Jaycar Pty Ltd v Lombardo [2011] NSWCA 284

Lathwell v Lathwell [2007] WASC 83

Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services v Smith (2017) 95 NSWLR 597; [2017] NSWCA 206

The Age Company Ltd v Liu (2013) 82 NSWLR 268; [2013] NSWCA 26

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Kristi Cooper (Applicant)
Lynda Atkin (First Respondent)
Andrew Helgesen (Second Respondent)
Vanessa Nyassi (Third Respondent)
Representation: Applicant in person
File Number(s): 2020/208039
Publication restriction: Nil.
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Equity
Citation:

[2020] NSWSC 828

Date of Decision:
30 June 2020
Before:
Hallen J
File Number(s):
2018/374346

Judgment

  1. THE COURT: Ms Kristi Cooper, the applicant, seeks leave to appeal from orders made by Hallen J dismissing a summons seeking a family provision order under Ch 3 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW): [2020] NSWSC 828. His Honour described the case as “ruinous, and recriminatory, proceedings”.

  2. The applicant is an adult step-child of Terence Helgesen, the deceased, who died on 18 November 2017. Lynda Atkin, the respondent, is the deceased’s sister. Without intending any disrespect, we will refer to the principal actors relevant to determining this case by their first names.

The primary judgment

  1. The deceased was born in July 1938, in the United Kingdom, and he died in November 2017, in Port Macquarie, New South Wales, aged 79 years. Lynda was born in September 1948.

  2. The deceased married Shirley Plater in 1960 and there were two children of their marriage, being Andrew, who was born in May 1966, and Vanessa, who was born in December 1972. The marriage of the deceased and Shirley ended in 1985.

  3. The deceased lived in the United Kingdom but in 1984 visited Australia where he met the applicant’s mother, Diane Holmes. Diane had been married to Victor Cooper, and the applicant is the only child of their marriage. The applicant was born in March 1963. The deceased and Diane married in February 1986 and…

Continue reading Cooper v Atkin

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Cooper v Atkin [2021] NSWCA 82
Case
[2021] NSWCA 82
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Cooper v Atkin* concerned a claim for provision from the estate of a deceased person brought by an adult step-child under Chapter 3 of the *Succession Act 2006* (NSW). The primary judge had declined to make an order for provision in favour of the applicant. The appeal to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales was on the basis that the primary judge had not made an order for provision due to alleged disentitling conduct by the applicant.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge erred in finding that the applicant's conduct disentitled them to provision from the deceased's estate. This involved an assessment of the nature and significance of the applicant's conduct in the context of the statutory requirements for family provision claims.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Payne and McCallum JJA, refused leave to appeal. The court dismissed the applicant's notice of motion filed on 3 May 2021. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Leave to appeal refused;

(2) Applicant’s notice of motion filed 3 May 2021 dismissed;

(3) Applicant to pay the respondents’ 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.