Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: McGettigan v Coulter [2022] NSWCA 166 Hearing dates: 24 June 2022 Date of orders: 29 August 2022 Decision date: 29 August 2022 Before: Meagher JA at [1];
Leeming JA at [78];
White JA at [79]Decision: (1) Refuse an extension of the time for the applicant to file his notice of appeal.
(2) Dismiss the appeal as incompetent.
(3) Dismiss the applicant’s motion filed 30 June 2022.
(4) Order that the applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the application to extend time and of the proposed appeal.
Catchwords: SUCCESSION – probate and administration – where primary judge granted letters of administration to respondents in respect of deceased’s 2000 will – where applicant challenged validity of that will and propounded 2016 will – where primary judge found applicant had no standing to challenge 2000 will and rejected substance of his challenge – where primary judge found 2016 will fabricated by applicant – whether evidence sufficient to support primary judge’s conclusions
CIVIL PROCEDURE – application to adduce further evidence in the appeal – where evidence sought to be led could have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at trial – where no realistic probability that with benefit of evidence there would be different outcome in the proceedings – no “special grounds” established under Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 75A(8) – application dismissed
Legislation Cited: Succession Act 2006 (NSW), ss 107, 111
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 75A(7), 75A(8), 75A(9)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 51.2, 51.6, 51.9, 51.16(2), 51.51
Cases Cited: Akins v National Australia Bank (1994) 34 NSWLR 155
In re Devoy; Fitzgerald v Fitzgerald [1943] St R Qd 137
Housing Commission of New South Wales v Tatmar Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 378
Nobarani v Mariconte (2018) 265 CLR 236; [2018] HCA 36
Searle v Commonwealth of Australia (2019) 100 NSWLR 55; [2019] NSWCA 127
Category: Principal judgment Parties: John Patrick McGettigan (Applicant)
Glen Patrick Coulter (First Respondent)
Rhonda Anne Coulter (Second Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Applicant in person
J Brown with N Simone (Respondents)Solicitors:
Field Lawyers (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2021/256597 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Civil
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 31 August 2021
- Before:
- Slattery J
- File Number(s):
- 2018/238970; 2018/174649; 2020/104101
HEADNOTE
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
Brian McGettigan died on 17 April 2018, and his wife Beverley on 16 July 2018. The respondents, as executors of Beverley’s will, commenced probate proceedings seeking a grant of letters of administration of Brian’s estate with his will made on 19 January 2000 annexed. By that will Brian left his whole estate to Beverley.
The applicant, Brian’s brother, opposed the grant of letters of administration, contending that Brian’s 2000 will was a fabrication. By a cross-claim he…
Continue reading McGettigan v Coulter
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- McGettigan v Coulter [2022] NSWCA 166
- Case
- [2022] NSWCA 166
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the evidence was sufficient to support the primary judge’s conclusions regarding McGettigan's standing and the fabrication of the 2016 will. Additionally, the court considered an application by McGettigan to adduce further evidence on appeal, which required determining whether the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence for the trial and if there were "special grounds" to admit it under section 75A(8) of the *Supreme Court Act 1970* (NSW).
The Court of Appeal dismissed McGettigan's application to adduce further evidence, finding that it could have been obtained with reasonable diligence at trial and that there was no realistic probability of a different outcome. Consequently, the court found that no "special grounds" were established. The court then determined that the appeal itself was incompetent.
The Court of Appeal ordered that an extension of time for the applicant to file his notice of appeal be refused, and the appeal be dismissed as incompetent. The applicant's motion filed on 30 June 2022 was also dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the application to extend time and of the proposed appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Refuse an extension of the time for the applicant to file his notice of appeal.
(2) Dismiss the appeal as incompetent.
(3) Dismiss the applicant’s motion filed 30 June 2022.
(4) Order that the applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the application to extend time and of the proposed appeal.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.