Ford v Simes

Case [2009] NSWCA 351



New South Wales


Court of Appeal


CITATION: Ford v Simes [2009] NSWCA 351
HEARING DATE(S): 30 September 2009
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 

6 November 2009
JUDGMENT OF: Tobias JA at 1; Bergin CJ in Eq at 2; Handley AJA at 76
DECISION: 1. Leave is granted under s 5 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act to bring the appeal.
2. Leave to adduce additional evidence is refused.
3. Appeal is dismissed.
4. Appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, subject to any application for a different costs order to be made by the filing of a Notice of Motion within 14 days of today.
CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE – Leave sought to adduce additional evidence – Where evidence available at trial – Where high probability of different outcome not established - SUCCESSION – Family provision and maintenance – No provision made for appellant – Where appellant is son of deceased – Where appellant unilaterally abandoned relationship with deceased – Where appellant displayed hostility toward deceased – No contact between appellant and deceased for 14 years - Whether open to Trial Judge to find no “other special circumstances” present
LEGISLATION CITED: Administration and Probate Act 1915 (Vic)
Administration of Estates Act 1925 (UK)
Family Protection Act 1955 (NZ)
Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW)
Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW)
Probate Administration Act 1898 (NSW)
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW)
Trustee Act 1925 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
CASES CITED: Barker & Anors v Magee [2001] NSWSC 563
Benney v Jones (1991) 23 NSWLR 559
Cetojevic v Cetojevic [2006] NSWSC 431
Council of the City of Greater Wollongong v Cowan (1955) 93 CLR 435
Diver v Neal [2009] NSWCA 54
Foley v Ellis [2008] NSWCA 288
Ford v Simes [2008] NSWSC 1120
Hamzy v Commissioner of Corrective Services [2007] NSWSC 1469
Hodge v Griffiths [1940] Ch 260
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Hughes v National Trustees, Executors and Agency Company of Australasia Ltd (1979) 143 CLR 134
In Re Allardice, Allardice v Allardice (1910) 29 NZLR 959
In Re Thorne v Sherson’s Contract [1920] V.L.R. 50
McIntosh v Williams [1976] 2 NSWLR 237
Mulcahy v Weldon [2002] NSWCA 206
Palmer v Dolman; Dolman v Palmer [2005] NSWCA 361
Potier v Ruddock [2008] NSWSC 153
Re Heberley (Deceased) [1971] NZLR 325
Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201
The Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith and Saint Charles Seminary, Perth v Scales (1962) 107 CLR 9
Walker v Walker (unreported, NSWSC 17 May 1996)
Wheatley v Wheatley [2006] NSWCA 262
TEXTS CITED: BA Helmore (ed), The Law of Real Property in New South Wales (6th Ed, 1948) Lawbook Co, Sydney
BA Helmore, (1930) 4(8) Australian Law Journal 258
AC Millard, GW Millard, BA Helmore (eds), Lawbook Co, The Law of Real Property in New South Wales (4th Ed, 1930) Melbourne
SA Thompson, (1930) 4(6) Australian Law Journal 185
PARTIES: Stuart Cecil Ford (Appellant)
Natalie Ann Vaisey Simes (Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40080 of 2009
COUNSEL: L Ellison SC/R…

Continue reading Ford v Simes

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ford v Simes [2009] NSWCA 351
Case
[2009] NSWCA 351
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Ford v Simes*, the appellant, the son of the deceased, sought to appeal a decision of the Trial Judge who had refused his claim for provision from the deceased's estate. The appellant had not received any provision under the will. The appeal was heard by Tobias JA, Bergin CJ in Eq, and Handley AJA.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether leave should be granted to adduce additional evidence, and whether the Trial Judge erred in finding that there were no "other special circumstances" justifying provision for the appellant under the relevant family provision legislation. The appellant also sought leave to bring the appeal under s 5 of the *Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act*.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to adduce additional evidence, noting that the evidence was available at trial and the appellant had not established a high probability of a different outcome. Regarding the family provision claim, the Court upheld the Trial Judge's finding that the appellant had unilaterally abandoned his relationship with the deceased, displayed hostility towards him, and had no contact for 14 years prior to the deceased's death. These factors were considered by the Court to be significant in determining whether any "other special circumstances" existed to warrant provision from the estate.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted leave to bring the appeal but dismissed the appeal itself. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, with a provision for any application for a different costs order to be made within 14 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave is granted under s 5 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act to bring the appeal.

2. Leave to adduce additional evidence is refused.

3. Appeal is dismissed.

4. Appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, subject to any application for a different costs order to be made by the filing of a Notice of Motion within 14 days of today.

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.