CRAIG -v- CRAIG [2015] WASC 109
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2015] WASC 109 | |
| 27/03/2015 | |||
| Case No: | CIV:2178/2014 | 24 MARCH 2015 | |
| Coram: | MITCHELL J | 24/03/15 | |
| 18 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave refused | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | SADIE ROBINSON CRAIG LESLIE BOYD CRAIG as Executor of the Estate of JOHN BOYD CRAIG LESLIE BOYD CRAIG as Trustee for the BOYD CRAIG TESTAMENTARY TRUST KATE HERRING SHACKLOCK as Beneficiary of the Estate of JOHN BOYD CRAIG LESLIE BOYD CRAIG & KATE HERRING SHACKLOCK as Trustees for the FRANCES BEATRICE STONE TESTAMENTARY TRUST |
Catchwords: | Family provision Application for leave to file out of time Whether arguable case Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Family Provision Act 1972 (WA), s 7(2) |
Case References: | Clayton v Aust (1993) 9 WAR 364 Grigoriou v Nitsos [1999] WASCA 42 Lieberman v Morris (1944) 69 CLR 69 Luciano v Rosenblum (1985) 2 NSWLR 65 Marshall v Carruthers [2002] NSWCA 47 Milillo v Konnecke [2008] NSWSC 1069 Re Salmon (dec) [1981] Ch 170 Robb v Hunter [2003] NSWSC 946 Waddingham v Burke [2015] WASC 65 White v Barron (1980) 144 CLR 431 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- Plaintiff
AND
LESLIE BOYD CRAIG as Executor of the Estate of JOHN BOYD CRAIG
First Defendant
LESLIE BOYD CRAIG as Trustee for the BOYD CRAIG TESTAMENTARY TRUST
Second Defendant
KATE HERRING SHACKLOCK as Beneficiary of the Estate of JOHN BOYD CRAIG
Third Defendant
LESLIE BOYD CRAIG & KATE HERRING SHACKLOCK as Trustees for the FRANCES BEATRICE STONE TESTAMENTARY TRUST
Fourth Defendant
Catchwords:
Family provision - Application for leave to file out of time - Whether arguable case - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Family Provision Act 1972 (WA), s 7(2)
Result:
Leave refused
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr L A Tsaknis
First Defendant : Ms S L Brown
Second Defendant : Ms S E Bruce
Third Defendant : Ms S E Bruce
Fourth Defendant : Ms S E Bruce
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Camm & Associates
First Defendant : WL & KJ Everett
Second Defendant : Jackson McDonald
Third Defendant : Jackson McDonald
Fourth Defendant : Jackson McDonald
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Clayton v Aust (1993) 9 WAR 364
Grigoriou v Nitsos [1999] WASCA 42
Lieberman v Morris (1944) 69 CLR 69
Luciano v Rosenblum (1985) 2 NSWLR 65
Marshall v Carruthers [2002] NSWCA 47
Milillo v Konnecke [2008] NSWSC 1069
Re Salmon (dec) [1981] Ch 170
Robb v Hunter [2003] NSWSC 946
Waddingham v Burke [2015] WASC 65
White v Barron (1980) 144 CLR 431
- MITCHELL J:
(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 24 March 2015 and has been edited from the transcript.)
Procedural background
1 The plaintiff seeks leave to file an application…
Continue reading Craig v Craig
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Craig v Craig [2015] WASC 109
- Case
- [2015] WASC 109
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Craig v Craig, the applicant, the daughter of the deceased, sought leave to file an out-of-time family provision application against the estate of her father. The father had died intestate, leaving his estate to his wife, the respondent. The applicant contended that she had been financially dependent on her father and that the respondent had not acted fairly towards her in relation to the estate. The court was required to determine whether the applicant had established an arguable case for leave to file the application out of time.
The court considered whether the applicant had demonstrated that her case turned on its own facts. It noted that the applicant had not provided any evidence to support her contentions and had failed to demonstrate how her case was different from other cases in which leave to file out-of-time family provision applications had been refused. The court held that the applicant had not established an arguable case, as she had not demonstrated that her case turned on its own facts. The court found that the applicant's case was similar to other cases in which leave to file out-of-time family provision applications had been refused.
The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that there were any special circumstances that warranted an extension of time. The court noted that the applicant had not provided any evidence to support her contentions and had failed to demonstrate how her case was different from other cases in which leave to file out-of-time family provision applications had been refused. The court found that the applicant had not established an arguable case, as she had not demonstrated that her case turned on its own facts. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that there were any special circumstances that warranted an extension of time.
The court refused the applicant leave to file an out-of-time family provision application.
The court considered whether the applicant had demonstrated that her case turned on its own facts. It noted that the applicant had not provided any evidence to support her contentions and had failed to demonstrate how her case was different from other cases in which leave to file out-of-time family provision applications had been refused. The court held that the applicant had not established an arguable case, as she had not demonstrated that her case turned on its own facts. The court found that the applicant's case was similar to other cases in which leave to file out-of-time family provision applications had been refused.
The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that there were any special circumstances that warranted an extension of time. The court noted that the applicant had not provided any evidence to support her contentions and had failed to demonstrate how her case was different from other cases in which leave to file out-of-time family provision applications had been refused. The court found that the applicant had not established an arguable case, as she had not demonstrated that her case turned on its own facts. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that there were any special circumstances that warranted an extension of time.
The court refused the applicant leave to file an out-of-time family provision application.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave refused
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.