Daley v Donaldson

Case [2022] NSWCA 96


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Daley v Donaldson [2022] NSWCA 96
Hearing dates: 10 June 2022
Decision date: 17 June 2022
Before: Leeming JA at [1];
White JA at [76];
Mitchelmore JA at [77].
Decision:

1. Grant leave to appeal in terms of the notice of appeal contained in the White Folder, amended by including ground 5A “The primary judge erred in proceeding on the basis that, on the facts of this case, there was a discretion to be exercised”.

2. Direct the applicant to file a notice of appeal, but otherwise dispense with the requirements of service.

3. Appeal dismissed, with costs.

Catchwords:

SUCCESSION – application for family provision order by biological son of deceased – approval of compromise under Succession Act 2006 (NSW) s 98 – parties entered into compromise following mediation – executrix opposed making orders giving effect to compromise – shortly after compromise reached, executrix came to believe applicant had been formally adopted – primary judge declined to make orders giving effect to settlement – whether adoption order caused applicant no longer to be a child of the deceased for purposes of s 57 of Succession Act – significance of executrix being on notice of the possibility of formal adoption – whether applicant remained a child of the deceased after being formally adopted – whether mistake as to basis of settlement warranted declining to make orders – appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:

Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), ss 95, 97, 102

Adoption of Children Act 1964 (Qld)

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 73

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 185

State and Territorial Laws and Records Recognition Act 1901 (Cth), s 18

Succession Act 2006 (NSW), ss 57, 59, 98

Testator’s Family Maintenance and Guardianship of Infants Act 1916 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Adoption of ESF [2014] NSWSC 687

Application of A and B and the Adoption Act 2000 (2005) 63 NSWLR 594; [2005] NSWSC 916

Australia Estates Pty Ltd v Cairns City Council [2005] QCA 328

Bartlett v Coomber [2008] NSWCA 10

Blendell v Blendell; Blendell v Blendell [2020] NSWCA 154

Federated Engine-Drivers and Firemen’s Association of Australasia v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd (1911) 12 CLR 398; [1911] HCA 31

Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd [2003] QB 679; [2002] EWCA Civ 1407

In the Estate of Searle, Deceased [1963] SASR 303

Liprini v Hale (2020) 103 NSWLR 275; [2020] NSWCA 130

Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353; [1954] HCA 72

MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2021] HCA 17; 95 ALJR 441

Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 100

Ogden Industries Pty Ltd v Lucas (1968) 118 CLR 32

Re D [2006] NSWSC 808

Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671

Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422; [1983] HCA 5

Texts Cited:

Z Cowen, “Marriage, Matrimonial Causes, Legitimacy and Adoption: Miscellaneous Notes on Recent Australian Statutes” (1965) Australian Year Book of…

Continue reading Daley v Donaldson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Daley v Donaldson [2022] NSWCA 96
Case
[2022] NSWCA 96
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Daley v Donaldson concerned an application for a family provision order by the biological son of the deceased, brought under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). The parties had reached a compromise following mediation, but the executrix of the deceased's estate opposed the court making orders to give effect to this settlement. The primary judge declined to make the orders, leading to the present appeal.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether a formal adoption order, made after the applicant's birth, caused him to no longer be considered a "child" of the deceased for the purposes of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), and whether the executrix's subsequent belief about this adoption warranted the primary judge declining to enforce the settlement. The court also considered whether a mistake as to the basis of the settlement justified refusing to make the orders.

The Court of Appeal held that the adoption order did not cause the applicant to cease being a child of the deceased within the meaning of the Act, particularly as the executrix had been aware of the possibility of adoption. The court reasoned that the executrix's belief, even if mistaken, did not provide a sufficient basis to decline to make orders giving effect to the compromise. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Grant leave to appeal in terms of the notice of appeal contained in the White Folder, amended by including ground 5A “The primary judge erred in proceeding on the basis that, on the facts of this case, there was a discretion to be exercised”.

2. Direct the applicant to file a notice of appeal, but otherwise dispense with the requirements of service.

3. Appeal dismissed, with 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.