Re GRP

Case [2019] NSWSC 710 3 June 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Re GRP [2019] NSWSC 710
Hearing dates: 3 June 2019
Date of orders: 03 June 2019
Decision date: 03 June 2019
Jurisdiction: Equity - Adoptions List
Before: Hallen J
Decision:
The Court:

(a) Orders, pursuant to UCPR rule 6.24 that SK, IF, TF and GK, the executors of the estate of VK, be joined as parties to the notice of motion filed by GRP on 24 December 2018.

(b) Orders that GRP pay the costs of the executors of the joinder notice of motion.

(c) Notes that GRP has served a substantive affidavit in support of the discharge motion and will provide the original to the Court and serve a copy thereof upon the Attorney-General within 7 days.

(d) Directs that the executors of the estate of VK serve such evidence upon which it is intended to rely by 4:00 p.m. on 24 June 2019.

(e) Directs GRP to serve any evidence in reply by 4:00 p.m. on Friday, 12 July 2019.
(f) Stands the matter over for further directions before Hallen J at 9:15 a.m. on Monday, 15 July 2019.
Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Parties – Joinder – Applicants are executors of estate of the deceased – Claim in Queensland brought by GRP, the biological son of the deceased who had been adopted in 1965 under Child Welfare Act 1939 (NSW) – Effect of adoption – Adopted son seeks order to discharge the adoption order made in New South Wales – The executors are the named Defendants in the Queensland proceedings – Executors seek joinder to son’s notice of motion for discharge of the adoption order – Son opposes joinder – Whether executors are necessary or proper parties to the discharge notice of motion
Legislation Cited: Adoption Act 2000 (NSW)
Adoption Information Act 1990 (NSW)
Adoption of Children Act 1965 (NSW)
Child Welfare Act 1939 (NSW)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Succession Act 1981 (Qld)
Adoption Act 2009 (Qld)
Cases Cited: Adoption of LVH [2014] NSWSC 1902
APT Finance Pty Ltd v Wingside Nominees Pty Ltd [No 2] [2009] WASCA 235
Cameron v Cole (1944) 68 CLR 571; [1944] HCA 5
China First Pty Ltd v Mount Isa Mines Ltd [2018] QCA 350
Fletcher & Ors (as liquidators of Octaviar Ltd & Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd) v Anderson (2014) 103 ACSR 236; [2014] NSWCA 450
John Alexander’s Clubs Pty Ltd v White City Tennis Club Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 1; [2010] HCA 19
Lee v Australian Executor Trustees Limited as Trustee of the Estate of the Late Ronald William Lee [2019] WASC 96
News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd (1996) 64 FCR 410; [1996] FCA 870
Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam [1969] 2 MLJ 52
Re DG and the Adoption Act 2000 [2007] NSWCA 241
Re Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd (in liq) (2013) 94 ACSR 612; [2013] NSWSC 786
Re Raejoe Pty Limited [2012] NSWSC 1457
Ross v Lane Cove Council (2014)…

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 GRP

Details

AGLC: Re GRP [2019] NSWSC 710
Case: [2019] NSWSC 710
Decision Date: 03 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re GRP involves a dispute regarding the joinder of parties in a proceeding to discharge an adoption order. The applicants in this matter are the executors of the estate of the deceased, and they are seeking to be joined to a notice of motion filed by GRP, the biological son of the deceased. GRP, who was adopted in 1965 under the Child Welfare Act 1939 (NSW), is seeking to discharge the adoption order. The executors are named as defendants in the Queensland proceedings and have applied to be joined to the notice of motion filed by GRP. GRP opposes the joinder, and the central legal issue is whether the executors are necessary or proper parties to the son’s notice of motion for discharge of the adoption order.

The court had to consider whether the executors were necessary or proper parties to the notice of motion filed by GRP. The court examined the effect of the adoption on the relationship between the parties and the implications of discharging the adoption order. It was noted that the adoption order had significant legal consequences, including the severing of the parental relationship and the alteration of the deceased’s estate. The court held that the executors were necessary parties to the notice of motion, as the discharge of the adoption order would impact the administration of the deceased’s estate. The court determined that the executors had a direct interest in the outcome of the motion, as the discharge would affect their duties and responsibilities in administering the estate.

The court's reasoning was based on the principle that parties who have a direct interest in the subject matter of a proceeding must be joined if they are necessary or proper parties. In this case, the executors had a direct interest in the discharge of the adoption order, as it would impact the administration of the deceased’s estate. The court concluded that the executors were necessary parties to the notice of motion and ordered that they be joined as parties to the proceeding. This decision ensures that all parties with a direct interest in the outcome of the motion are properly before the court, allowing for a comprehensive and fair resolution of the matter.

Orders