Re Gooriah - [2016] VSC 659

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

TRUSTS, EQUITY & PROBATE LIST

S PRB 2015 06751

IN THE MATTER OF the estate of VARUNADFEWA GOORIAH

MICHA LUFOR	Plaintiff
v
CYNTHIA GOORIAH	Defendant

S CI 2016 01974

MIRELLA CHRISTIANE AURORE LATCHMAN	Plaintiff
v
MICHA LUFOR (who is sued as administrator of the estate of VARUNADWFEWA GOORIAH deceased)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	McMillan J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 August 2016, further written submissions by emails dated 2 and 2 September 2016
DATE OF RULING:	4 November 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Gooriah
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 659

---

SUCCESSION LAW — Compromise of probate proceeding — Approval of compromise — Further proceeding by another claimant alleging interest in estate after compromise of probate proceeding — Compromise of subsequent proceeding subject to approval — Whether compromise should be approved — Whether contravention of overarching obligations of claimant — Civil Procedure Act 2010, ss 18, 41, 42 — Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, r 15.08

---

S PRB 2015 06751

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr N Jones	Kavanagh Lawyers
For the Defendant	Mr E Luff, solicitor	Wilmoth Field and Warne

S CI 2016 01974

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R Shepherd	Contested Wills & Probate Lawyers
For the Defendant	Mr N Jones	Kavanagh Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

Varunadfewa Gooriah died intestate on 8 February 2015 (‘the deceased’). He was survived by his widow (‘the plaintiff’), his two adult children, Sandy aged 32 and Cynthia (‘Cynthia’) aged 31, and his infant child born on 3 April 2012. The plaintiff is the mother of the infant child.

The deceased’s estate at the date of his death comprised of his property in Sunbury (‘the Sunbury property’) valued at approximately $607,000 and liabilities of approximately $230,425 being in large part a mortgage over the Sunbury property, making a net value of $376,575.

These reasons concern the consideration of terms of settlement in two proceedings, both of which are subject to the approval of the Court.

Background

On 11 May 2015, the plaintiff filed an application filed for a grant of administration of the intestate estate of the deceased (‘the estate proceeding’).

Cynthia had filed a caveat against the making a grant of representation on 21 April 2015 on the ground that she had a better right to representation of the estate as a child of the deceased.[1] Another caveat against the making of a grant of representation was filed by Mirella Christiane Aurore Latchman (‘Ms Latchman’) on 23 April 2015 on the basis that she is the de facto partner of the deceased.
[1]This caveat was withdrawn on 26 May 2015 as a result of the plaintiff’s application for a grant of representation made on 11 May 2015.

As required by the Supreme Court (Administration and Probate) Rules 2014 (‘the Rules’), the Registrar of Probates gave notices to Cynthia and Ms Latchman of the plaintiff’s application.

Ms Latchman…

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 Re Gooriah

Details

AGLC: Re Gooriah [2016] VSC 659
Case: [2016] VSC 659
Decision Date: 4 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute over the estate of a deceased person, where a compromise of probate proceedings had been reached but was now challenged by another claimant. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary legal issue for the court was whether the compromise, which was reached after the initial probate proceedings, should be approved given that another claimant had come forward with an interest in the estate subsequent to the compromise. The court also had to consider whether the compromise contravened the overarching obligations of the claimant under the Civil Procedure Act 2010 and whether it aligned with the relevant rules of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015.

The court examined the obligations of the parties involved in the compromise, particularly under sections 18, 41, and 42 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010. It assessed whether the compromise was in the interest of justice and whether it adhered to the overarching obligations that require parties to act fairly and in good faith. Furthermore, the court evaluated the subsequent claimant's allegations of an interest in the estate and whether this interest could potentially impact the fairness and validity of the compromise. The court also considered rule 15.08 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 to ensure that the compromise procedure was correctly followed. After careful deliberation, the court determined that the compromise should be approved, finding that it was in the interest of justice and did not contravene the overarching obligations.

The court ultimately approved the compromise, concluding that it was fair and just and did not contravene the overarching obligations of the parties. The decision was based on the evidence presented and the court's interpretation of the relevant statutory and procedural requirements. The court's approval of the compromise meant that the estate could be distributed according to the terms agreed upon by the parties, despite the late claim by another party. The court's decision was made in accordance with the overarching principles of fairness and good faith in civil litigation.

Orders