(1) The Defendants’ notice of motion filed 19 August 2021 seeking summary dismissal is dismissed.
(2) The costs of the notice of motion be the Plaintiff’s costs in the cause.
(3) The proceedings be stood over for directions in the Succession List on Friday, 1 April 2022.
Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Summary dismissal - Principles applicable - Question whether the Supreme Court of NSW has jurisdiction to make a family provision order where, at the time of death, the deceased was domiciled outside New South Wales, but where there was, and is, property situated within New South Wales that may be the subject of a notional estate order - Whether appropriate for summary dismissal where question of construction of statute, the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) may be considered
[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 Gardner v Selby
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Gardner v Selby [2022] NSWSC 298
Case
[2022] NSWSC 298
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Gardner v Selby involved a dispute concerning the deceased's will and potential family provision claims. The parties in this case were Gardner, the deceased's son, and Selby, the deceased's daughter. The central issue was whether the Supreme Court of New South Wales had the jurisdiction to make a family provision order in this case. The deceased had passed away while being domiciled outside New South Wales, but there was property within the state that could potentially be subject to a notional estate order.
The legal issues that the court needed to resolve were whether the Supreme Court of New South Wales had the necessary jurisdiction to make a family provision order under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) and whether the question of the statute's construction warranted consideration in this case. The court needed to determine if the deceased's domicile outside New South Wales at the time of death precluded the court from exercising jurisdiction over the property within the state. The court was also required to decide whether it was appropriate to grant a summary dismissal without considering the potential merits of the case.
The court held that the question of whether the Supreme Court of New South Wales had jurisdiction to make a family provision order was a matter of statutory construction, and therefore, it was not appropriate to dismiss the claim summarily. The court found that the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) provided for the court to have jurisdiction over property situated within the state, regardless of the deceased's domicile at the time of death. The court further held that the question of jurisdiction was not a straightforward issue and required a proper hearing to determine the construction of the relevant statute. As such, the court dismissed the application for summary dismissal and ordered that the matter proceed to a full hearing to determine the merits of the case.
The final orders of the court were that the application for summary dismissal was dismissed, and the matter was to proceed to a full hearing to determine the merits of the case. The court emphasised that the question of jurisdiction was a complex issue that required proper consideration and that the potential merits of the case should not be disregarded at this stage. The court also highlighted the importance of ensuring that the relevant statutory provisions were properly interpreted and applied in this case.