Hooper v Rowley

Hooper v Rowley concerned an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose from an application made under the *Family Provision Act 1982* (NSW) concerning the estate of a deceased person. The appellant sought to appeal a prior decision, but the primary question before the Court of Appeal was whether leave to appeal was required, and if so, whether it should be granted.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included determining the measure of the value of the appellant's right for the purposes of section 101(2)(r)(ii) of the *Supreme Court Act 1970* (NSW), which governs when leave to appeal is required. This involved considering whether the proposed appeal would settle any significant legal principle and whether the litigation had already consumed an excessive proportion of the estate. Additionally, the court had to consider the underlying application under the *Family Provision Act 1982* (NSW), which involved the two-stage process outlined in *Singer v Berghouse* (1994) 181 CLR 201. This required assessing whether the appellant had been left without adequate provision for their proper maintenance and advancement, particularly in light of the competing claim of the second respondent, who had resided in the property in question her entire life and to whom the entire property had been bequeathed under the deceased's will.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the appeal would not settle any important question of law or public interest, nor would it advance any principle of law. Furthermore, the court considered that the litigation had already consumed a disproportionate amount of the estate, and that granting leave to appeal would likely exacerbate this issue. Applying the principles for granting leave to appeal, the court concluded that the threshold for granting leave had not been met.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.