Coric v Grotto; Nelson v Grotto

The case involves two appeals, Coric v Grotto and Nelson v Grotto, heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appeals concern a decision made by an Associate Judge not to grant summary judgment in proceedings under the Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW). The central issue in the appeals is the appropriate forum for the appeal: whether it should be heard by a single judge of a Division of the Supreme Court or by the Court of Appeal. Additionally, the appeals question whether a motion related to summary judgment constitutes proceedings under the Family Provision Act or Part 13 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

The court considered the relevant provisions of Part 60 Rule 17 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW). It examined the nature of the decision made by the Associate Judge, determining whether it was a decision in proceedings under the Family Provision Act or whether it fell within the scope of Part 13 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The court also assessed the availability of appeal to a single judge of a Division of the Supreme Court, as opposed to the Court of Appeal, and the implications of these findings for the procedural pathway of the appeals.

Ultimately, the court ruled that the appeal should be heard by the Court of Appeal. It found that the motion related to summary judgment constituted proceedings under the Family Provision Act, and therefore the appeal did not fall within the jurisdiction of a single judge of a Division of the Supreme Court. The court clarified the procedural steps required for such appeals and emphasised the importance of correctly characterising the nature of the decision being appealed.

The final orders were that the appeals be remitted to the Court of Appeal for further determination, ensuring that the procedural requirements and jurisdictional considerations were properly addressed.