Rostirolla v Fiakos (No 2)

Case [2002] FCA 1562

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rostirolla v Fiakos (No 2) [2002] FCA 1562

TRUSTS – creation of – where insurance policy on the life of deceased owned by respondent – whether policy proceeds held in trust for children of deceased – whether oral trust – whether deceased retained power to vary or revoke – whether such power exercised

Life Insurance Act 1995 (Cth) ss 200-203, 207

Russell v Scott (1936) 55 CLR 440 discussed
Blackwell v Blackwell [1929] AC 318 discussed
Voges v Monaghan (1954) 94 CLR 231 discussed
Guest v Webb [1965] VR 427 cited
Kauter v Hilton (1953) 90 CLR 86 applied
Smith v Hurst (1852) 10 Hare 30 discussed
Re Ashby;  Ex parte Wreford [1892] 1 QB 872 discussed
Garrard v Lord Lauderdale (1831) 2 Russ & M 450 referred to
Rose v Rose (1986) 7 NSWLR 679 cited
Re Australian Elizabeth Theatre Trust (1991) 30 FCR 491 cited
Associated Alloys Pty Ltd v ACN 001 452 106 Pty Ltd (in liq) (2000) 202 CLR 588 cited
Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242 cited
Godfrey v Poole (1888) 13 App Cas 49 applied
Last v Rosenfeld [1972] 2 NSWLR 923 cited
Bloch v Bloch (1994) 180 CLR 390 cited
Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101 cited

Jacobs –  Law  of Trusts, Meagher & Gummow, 6th Ed

DAYNA ROSTIROLLA and PETER ROSTIROLLA v JOAN FIAKOS and ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
N 958 of 2002

GYLES J
SYDNEY
17 DECEMBER 2002


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N957 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

DAYNA ROSTIROLLA
FIRST APPLICANT

PETER ROSTIROLLA
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

JOAN FIAKOS
FIRST RESPONDENT

ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

GYLES J

DATE OF ORDER:

17 DECEMBER 2002

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application is dismissed.

2.        The proceeding is stood over for argument as to costs.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N958 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

DAYNA ROSTIROLLA
FIRST APPLICANT

PETER ROSTIROLLA
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

JOAN FIAKOS
FIRST RESPONDENT

ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

GYLES J

DATE:

17 DECEMBER 2002

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This case concerns the beneficial ownership of the proceeds of a policy of insurance over the life of Silvano Bruno Rostirolla (“the deceased”) owned by Joan Fiakos, the first respondent (“Mrs Fiakos”), the deceased having died on 21 May 2001.  The circumstances under which this issue comes to be litigated in this Court appear sufficiently from Rostirolla v Fiakos [2002] FCA 1058. The proceeds of the policy amount to $1,120,031 plus interest. The policy was issued to Mrs Fiakos on 20 January 1997. The deceased paid all of the premiums due in respect of the policy until late 2000, after which Mrs Fiakos declined to accept cheques in payment of those premiums. The applicants, Dayna Rostirolla…

Continue reading Rostirolla v Fiakos (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rostirolla v Fiakos (No 2) [2002] FCA 1562
Case
[2002] FCA 1562
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rostirolla v Fiakos (No 2) involves a dispute between two parties, Rostirolla and Fiakos, with the nature of the disagreement centering on claims of estoppel. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the court was tasked with determining the validity of the estoppel claim made by the plaintiff against the defendant.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's estoppel claim could be sustained, given that it essentially sought to alter the interpretation of the primary trust. The court considered whether the plaintiff's argument was valid and whether the defendant had indeed acted in a way that warranted the application of estoppel principles. The court also evaluated the broader implications of allowing such claims, as they could potentially redefine the original terms of trusts and affect the rights and obligations of the parties involved.

In its reasoning, the court concluded that the estoppel claim was essentially an attempt to recharacterise the primary trust, which it found to be impermissible. The court held that such a claim was inherently flawed, as it sought to alter the foundational legal relationship between the parties rather than address a specific issue that arose from their dealings. The court dismissed the application on the grounds that the estoppel claim was not viable, as it did not align with established legal principles governing trusts and equitable estoppel. Consequently, the proceeding was stood over for further argument concerning the costs associated with the case.

The court's final orders were that the application for estoppel was dismissed and the proceeding was stood over for argument as to costs, leaving the parties to address the financial implications of the litigation in a subsequent hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The proceeding is stood over for argument as to costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

GYLES J
A claim for estoppel is an attempt to plead the primary trust in another way, and falls with that claim.Conclusion The application is dismissed. The proceeding will stand over for argument as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GYLES J

Full text does not contain this section.