JUDGE:	LANSDOWNE AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 and 25 May 2012 and 1 June 2012; written submissions 18 June 2012 and 4 July 2012.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 February 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Erlich v Fleiszig & Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 63

---

TESTATOR’S FAMILY MAINTENANCE – application for extension of time to bring claim – applicant called deceased his aunt – deceased and her husband best friends of applicant’s parents – applicant asserts deceased’s relationship to him akin to parent/child – test for assessment of strength of applicant’s case – whether size of claim relevant - case for further provision arguable but not strong - delay of five and a half months - delay not objectively excusable – applicant occasioned loss to the estate -whether that loss is relevant prejudice – whether the prejudice is remediable – overall justice of the case - application refused - Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) ss91,99.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Ms U Stanisich	Robert Richter & Associates
For the First Defendant	Dr D Kovacs	Luis Peter Fleiszig
For the Second Defendant	Mr S L Tatarka	Arnold Bloch Leibler

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction and summary.............................................................................................................. 1

Applicable law and issues................................................................................................................ 3

Discussion of the legal principles............................................................................................... 8

Delay.......................................................................................................................................... 8
Prejudice.................................................................................................................................... 8
Strength of the applicant’s case................................................................................................. 9
Quantum of the claim.............................................................................................................. 18

Approach to evaluation of the evidence...................................................................................... 20

Strength of the plaintiff’s case...................................................................................................... 25

Relationship between the deceased and the plaintiff and related factors.......................... 28

s 91(4)(e): Relationship between the plaintiff and the deceased............................................... 28
s 91(4) (f): Obligations of the deceased to the plaintiff and others........................................... 28
s 91(4) (k): Contributions by the plaintiff to the deceased’s welfare........................................ 28
s 91(4) (l): Benefits previously given by the deceased.............................................................. 28
s 91(4) (m): Whether plaintiff being maintained by the deceased............................................ 28

Size and nature of the estate: s 91(4)(g).................................................................................... 37
Plaintiff’s situation...................................................................................................................... 37

s91(4)(h): financial resources and needs.................................................................................. 37
s91(4)(i): any relevant disability.............................................................................................. 37
s91(4)(j): plaintiff’s age............................................................................................................ 37
s91(4)(n): liability of any other person to maintain the plaintiff............................................. 37

Character and conduct of any person: s 91(4)(o).................................................................... 38
Section 91(4)(p): other relevant matters; promises made by the deceased; deceased’s prior wills........................................................................................................................................................ 38
Conclusion in relation to the strength of the case.................................................................. 40

Delay................................................................................................................................................... 46

Discussion at the funeral............................................................................................................ 47
Conversation with Ruth Kayser in May 2010......................................................................... 50
Conclusion in relation to delay................................................................................................. 53

Prejudice............................................................................................................................................ 55

Evidence....................................................................................................................................... 56
Findings........................................................................................................................................ 61

Obstruction of sale................................................................................................................... 61
Quantification of loss............................................................................................................... 62
Is this relevant prejudice?........................................................................................................ 63
Can the loss be remediated on the making of a final order?.....................................................…

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 Erlich v Fleiszig

Details

AGLC: Erlich v Fleiszig [2013] VSC 63
Case: [2013] VSC 63
Decision Date: 22 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Erlich v Fleiszig involved an application by the applicant, Erlich, for an extension of time to bring a claim for maintenance under the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) against the estate of the deceased, Fleiszig. Erlich claimed that the deceased, who he referred to as his aunt, had a relationship with him akin to that of a parent and child. The deceased and her husband were best friends with Erlich’s parents. The court was required to determine whether Erlich's case for maintenance was arguable, whether the delay in bringing the claim was excusable, and whether the delay had caused prejudice to the estate.

The court considered the strength of Erlich's claim for maintenance, noting that while it was arguable, it was not strong. The court assessed the five and a half month delay in bringing the claim and found it was not objectively excusable. The applicant had occasioned a loss to the estate by his delay, and the court had to determine if this constituted relevant prejudice. The court concluded that the delay was not excusable, and the loss to the estate, while present, was not sufficient to remediate the prejudice. The overall justice of the case did not support granting the extension of time.

The court ultimately refused the application for an extension of time to bring the claim. The delay was found not to be objectively excusable, and the prejudice caused by the delay could not be remedied. The court held that the delay had caused some loss to the estate, but this was not enough to warrant an extension of time. The application was dismissed, and no further provision was made for Erlich’s claim. The decision was made under the provisions of sections 91 and 99 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic).

Orders