Pilotto v Cosoleto; Papi & Papi v Cosoleto and Cosoleto v Cosoleto

The case before the court involved three separate proceedings, each initiated by different parties seeking a family provision order under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) from the estate of a deceased individual. The parties in the first proceeding were Pilotto versus Cosoleto, in the second proceeding, Papi & Papi versus Cosoleto, and in the third proceeding, Cosoleto versus Cosoleto. The executor of the deceased's will, Cosoleto, was the defendant in all three cases. The proceedings involved claims from a former de facto partner, a previous former de facto partner, a daughter, and a grandson of the deceased, all seeking financial provision from the estate. The deceased's will named the son, who is also the father of the grandson, as the sole beneficiary, with no provision made for any of the plaintiffs.

The court was required to address several legal issues, primarily concerning the consolidation of the three proceedings. The court had to determine whether the proceedings involved a common question of law or fact, and if it was otherwise desirable to make an order under rule 28.5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the grandson's claim was out of time and if an extension of time was permissible under section 58(2) of the Succession Act. The court also had to decide whether adequate and proper provision had been made in the will for each of the plaintiffs and, if not, the nature and quantum of the provision to be made.

The court found that all proceedings involved a common question of law and fact, as they all sought family provision orders from the same estate. The court determined that it was desirable to make an order under rule 28.5 to hear the proceedings consecutively, with the evidence in one being evidence in the other. The court also found that the grandson's claim was out of time but granted an extension of time for the application, as the parties consented to the application being made out of time. The court found that adequate and proper provision had not been made in the will for the former de facto partner, the previous former de facto partner, and the daughter, and it made orders for financial provision to be made to each of them. The court found that adequate and proper provision had been made for the grandson and dismissed his claim.

The court made orders for the proceedings to be heard consecutively, with the evidence in one being evidence in the other. The court granted the extension of time for the grandson's application and dismissed his claim. The court made orders for financial provision to be made to the former de facto partner, the previous former de facto partner, and the daughter, and dismissed the grandson's claim.