Maiolo v Caristo

The case of Maiolo v Caristo involved a dispute over the succession of a deceased person's estate, with three adult sons seeking to claim under the Family Provision Act. They attempted to include a home that had passed to the deceased's de facto partner by survivorship as part of the notional estate. The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory restraint on dealing with the home until the trial. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had to determine whether the restraint should be granted.

The legal issues the court had to address were whether the sons' claims were weak to marginal and whether the de facto partner, who was elderly and had lived in the home for a long time, posed a threat of disposing of the property. The court had to balance the interests of the plaintiffs in preserving the potential assets available for their claims against the de facto partner's rights to deal with the property as they saw fit. The court also had to consider the balance of convenience and whether the restraint would cause more harm than good.

The court found that the plaintiffs' claims were weak to marginal and that the de facto partner, who had lived in the home for a long time, did not pose a threat to dispose of the property. The court decided that granting the restraint would cause more harm than good, as it would interfere with the de facto partner's rights to deal with the property. The court held that the balance of convenience favoured denying the restraint. The court also noted that the de facto partner was elderly and had lived in the home for a long time, which further supported its decision.

The court denied the interlocutory restraint on dealing with the home and dismissed the plaintiffs' application. The de facto partner was free to deal with the property as they saw fit, subject to any final orders made in the case. The case highlights the importance of considering the balance of convenience and the rights of all parties involved in a succession dispute.