Giacomino Fazio v Ridolfo Fazio

[2012] HCASL 176

GIACOMINO FAZIO

v

RIDOLFO FAZIO & ORS

[2012] HCASL 176
P10/2012

1. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Pullin, Newnes and Murphy JJA) made on 29 March 2012 dismissing the applicant's appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Martin CJ).

2. The applicant is the elder brother of the first respondent and the son of Vincenzo Fazio and the second respondent, Giuseppina Fazio.  Vincenzo and Giuseppina Fazio were partners in a limestone quarrying and stone masonry business together with a number of other persons.  In his youth, the applicant was brought into the partnership and given an equal portion of his parents' share in the partnership business.  In around 1984, as a result of discord between the applicant and his father, the applicant ceased to work in the business.  The business flourished. 

3. Vincenzo Fazio died on 5 August 2007.  On 12 March 2008, the applicant commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Western Australia contending, among other things, that he had remained a partner in the business at all times, and that he accordingly held an interest in various assets associated with the partnership business.

4. On 1 October 2010, the Supreme Court ordered that the applicant's claim be dismissed.  Martin CJ relevantly found that, at some point in 1984, the applicant and Vincenzo Fazio had agreed that the applicant would retire from the partnership with effect from 1 July 1984 on terms including that the partnership would continue, the applicant would be absolved from any liabilities arising from the future conduct of the partnership business, and that the applicant and his wife would be given certain property in consideration for the applicant's surrender of his interest in the partnership.  The applicant appealed from the decision of the Supreme Court.  On 29 March 2012, the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal.

5. The respondent correctly submits that the application raises no issue of general public importance.  The applicant demonstrates no arguable error in the Court of Appeal's statement of applicable principles.  It would not be in the interests of justice generally, or in this particular case, that there be a grant of special leave to appeal.

6. Pursuant to r 41.11.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

K.M. Hayne
5 December 2012 S.M. Crennan