Milovan Stanojevic (Executor of the Will and Estate of Slobodan Stanojevic deceased) v Milica Riboskic (by her litigation guardian, James David Daly)

Case

[2020] VSCA 230

8 September 2020


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Milovan Stanojevic (Executor of the Will and Estate of Slobodan Stanojevic deceased) v Milica Riboskic (by her litigation guardian, James David Daly) [2020] VSCA 230 [2020] VSCA 230 8 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between Milovan Stanojevic, as executor of the estate of Slobodan Stanojevic, and Milica Riboskic, represented by her litigation guardian James David Daly, involved a dispute over whether the respondent was an eligible person under the Administration and Probate Act 1958, entitled to claim family provision from the estate. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was tasked with determining if Milica Riboskic qualified as an eligible person under the Act, specifically if she could have brought proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975. Another issue was whether the principal asset of the estate was acquired after the end of their relationship, which could affect her eligibility. The court also needed to assess whether the parties had a genuine domestic partnership and whether the judge had correctly interpreted the evidence regarding the respondent's receipt of a single person pension since 1997. Additionally, the court considered if the judge had properly exercised discretion in ordering the applicant's costs to be paid out of the estate in priority to the respondent's claim.

The court found no error in the judge's determination that Milica Riboskic was an eligible person. The judge's findings regarding the existence of a genuine domestic partnership and the interpretation of the single person pension evidence were upheld. The court further concluded that there was no misapplication of the Relationships Act 2008, s 35(2). Regarding the costs order, the court held that there was no attempt by the applicant to demonstrate any error in the exercise of discretion. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

The final orders of the court affirmed the decision of the trial judge, dismissing the appeal and denying leave to appeal. The costs order remained as determined by the trial judge.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Succession Law

Legal Concepts

  • Appeal

  • Limitation Periods

  • Res Judicata

  • Unconscionable Conduct

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

4

Cases Cited

9

Statutory Material Cited

0

Riboskic v Stanojevic [2019] VCC 1764
Moore & Moore [2008] FamCA 32
Farmer & Bramley [2000] FamCA 1615