Legal Research
Cases
PIROZZI v PIROZZI

PIROZZI v PIROZZI

Case [2003] WASC 8 21 January 2003

Application Dismissed

Succession Law

Family Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

PIROZZI -v- PIROZZI & ORS [2003] WASC 8

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASC 8
Case No:	CIV:1720/2001	Heard:	23 OCTOBER 2002
Coram:	ACTING MASTER CHAPMAN	Delivered:	21/01/03
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	ANGELINO FRANCESCO PIROZZI DOMENICO GENNARO PIROZZI MARIA LUIGIA PIROZZI VLADIMIR VESELKO OZICH (as Executors of the Will of the Deceased)
Catchwords:	Succession Inheritance Family maintenance Adequate provision Proper maintenance, support and advancement in life Will made by deceased Application for increased provision by youngest son Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972, s 6, s 7
Case References:	Cook & Anor v Cook, unreported; SCt of NSW; 14 October 1997 Grainger v The Public Trustee in and for the State of Western Australia as Administrator of the Estate of John Edward Webb Grainger & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950670; 6 December 1995 Anasson v Phillips, unreported; SCt of NSW (Young J); 4 March 1988 Blore v Lang (1960) 104 CLR 124 Bondelmonte v Blanckensee & Ors [1989] WAR 305 Bosch & Anor v Perpetual Trustees Co Ltd [1938] AC 463 Clayton v Aust (1993) 9 WAR 364 Coates v National Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd (1956) 95 CLR 494 Grey v Harrison [1997] 2 VR 359 Hughes v National Trustees Executors & Agency Co of Australia (1997) 143 CLR 134 Ingamells v Western Australian Trustees Ltd & Anor; unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 930117; 5 March 1993 Kazacos v Kazcos & Ors [2002] NSWSC 878 Paterson v Vaughan Charles Bunter as Executor of the Will of George Bunter [2000] WASC 83 Pereira v Patrick & Ors [2001] WASC 342 Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith v Scales (1962) 107 CLR 9 Randell v Randell [1999] WASC 146 Re Allardice; Allardice v Allardice [1910] 29 NZLR 959 Re Allen (Dec); Allen v Manchester (1921) 41 NZLR 218 Re Bourke (Dec) and the TFM Act [1968] 2 NSWR 453 Re Fulop (Dec) (1987) 8 NSWLR 679 Re Howell; Howell v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1953] 1 WLR 1034 Schmidt v Watkins [2002] VSC 273 Singer v Berghouse (No 2) (1994) 181 CLR 201 Suffern v Suffern-Noble & Ors [2002] VSC 389 Vigolo v Bostin [2001] WASC 335

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : PIROZZI -v- PIROZZI & ORS [2003] WASC 8 CORAM : ACTING MASTER CHAPMAN HEARD : 23 OCTOBER 2002 DELIVERED : 21 JANUARY 2003 FILE NO/S : CIV 1720 of 2001 BETWEEN : ANGELINO FRANCESCO PIROZZI

Plaintiff

AND

DOMENICO GENNARO PIROZZI

First Defendant

MARIA LUIGIA PIROZZI

Second Defendant

DOMENICO GENNARO PIROZZI

VLADIMIR VESELKO OZICH (as Executors of the Will of the Deceased)

Third Defendants

Catchwords:

Succession - Inheritance - Family maintenance - Adequate provision - Proper maintenance, support and advancement in life - Will made by deceased - Application for increased provision by youngest son - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Inheritance (Family and Dependants…

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 PIROZZI v PIROZZI

Details

AGLC: PIROZZI v PIROZZI [2003] WASC 8
Case: [2003] WASC 8
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Angelino Francesco Pirozzi sought increased provision from the estate of his deceased father, Francesco Pirozzi. The deceased left a will providing for his sons and a de facto partner. The sons, Angelino Francesco and Domenico Gennaro Pirozzi, challenged the adequacy of the provisions made for Angelino Francesco. The court was required to decide whether the provisions made by the deceased were adequate for the proper maintenance, support, education, and advancement in life of Angelino Francesco.

The court examined the deceased's will and the circumstances surrounding the estate and the relationship between the deceased and his sons. It considered the deceased's intentions, the financial situation of Angelino Francesco, and the value of his assets. The court found that the deceased had made provision for his sons and was aware of their financial situation. The court held that the provisions made for Angelino Francesco were adequate for his proper maintenance, support, education, and advancement in life.

The court dismissed Angelino Francesco's application for increased provision from the estate of his deceased father. The court held that the provisions made by the deceased were adequate and proper in the circumstances of the case. The court found that Angelino Francesco had sufficient assets and income to meet his needs and that there was a real probability that he would benefit further from his father's estate or that of his mother in the future.

Orders