Katramados v Hasapis (No 5) - [2021] NSWSC 1656

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Katramados v Hasapis (No 5) [2021] NSWSC 1656
Hearing dates: On the papers
Decision date: 16 December 2021
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Robb J
Decision:
See [102] to [106] below

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION — Family provision — Determination of final substantive and costs orders to be made following earlier judgments — No point of principle

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Succession Act 2006 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Katramados v Hasapis [2018] NSWSC 948
Katramados v Hasapis (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1604
Katramados v Hasapis (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 435
Katramados v Hasapis (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 846

Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Julia Katramados (plaintiff)
Despina Hasapis (first defendant)
Adriana Kalantzis (second defendant)
Maria Kalantzis (third defendant)
Vassilis Kalantzis (fourth defendant)
Representation:
Counsel: A Hill (plaintiff)
C Birtles (administrator)
Solicitors: First Choice Family Lawyers (plaintiff)
Excused (first defendant)
Self-represented (second defendant)
Excused (third defendant)
Self-represented (fourth defendant)
Gordon Albert Salier AM (administrator)

File Number(s): 2015/374480

Judgment

This should be the final judgment in these proceedings dealing with the distribution of the estate in New South Wales (the NSW estate) of the late Nicholaos (Nicholas) Kalantzis (the deceased), who died on 26 December 2014 in Greece at the age of 96 years.

First judgment

I published the first judgment in these proceedings on 22 June 2018: Katramados v Hasapis [2018] NSWSC 948.
Because of the number of judgments that have been published, and the complexity of the issues, it will be necessary for the Court to assume that the reader has a knowledge of all of the judgments. I will generally use the same terms in these reasons as I have used in the other judgments. For convenience, and without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to the parties by their first names.
As was explained in the first judgment, the deceased left a final Greek will that had the effect that, apart from a gift of a substantial part of his assets in Greece to his stepdaughter Maria, the daughter of the deceased's wife, the plaintiff Julia, the deceased died intestate in respect of the balance of his estate in Greece (the Greek estate) and New South Wales.
So far as is presently relevant, the primary issues dealt with in the first judgment involved claims by the second defendant, Adriana, and the fourth defendant, Billy, for further family provision under s 59 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), instead of the shares that they would receive in the NSW estate on the deceased’s intestacy. The parties also invested significant forensic effort in exploring issues of Greek and New South Wales probate law in relation to the effect of various wills made by the deceased. However, at the beginning of the hearing, the Court was invited to make an order revoking the grant of probate that had been made by the Court to Despina of a will made in this State by the deceased. The Court subsequently made an order appointing Mr…

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 Katramados v Hasapis (No 5)

Details

AGLC: Katramados v Hasapis (No 5) [2021] NSWSC 1656
Case: [2021] NSWSC 1656
Decision Date: 16 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Katramados v Hasapis, the matter before the court concerned a dispute over family provision claims. The deceased, Dimitrios Katramados, left a will that omitted to provide for his daughter, Alexandra Hasapis. The daughter brought an action for family provision under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), claiming that the will did not make reasonable financial provision for her. The case had undergone several hearings, and the court was now required to determine final substantive and costs orders.

The legal issues the court needed to address included whether the will made reasonable financial provision for the daughter and, if not, what order should be made to address this. The court also had to consider the quantum of costs to be awarded in the context of the proceedings. The central question was whether the deceased's estate should be required to make further financial provision for the daughter beyond what was already ordered in earlier judgments.

In its reasoning, the court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties. It considered the deceased's intentions and the circumstances surrounding the making of the will. The court also assessed the daughter's financial needs and the provisions made for her by the estate. Ultimately, the court found that the deceased had not made reasonable financial provision for the daughter and ordered the estate to make additional payments to her. The court also determined the appropriate costs order, considering the conduct of the parties throughout the litigation. The court's decision was based on a careful analysis of the relevant legal principles and the specific facts of the case.

Orders