Skidmore v Salvatore - [2025] NSWSC 712

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Skidmore v Salvatore [2025] NSWSC 712
Hearing dates: 26 June 2025
Date of orders: 4 July 2025
Decision date: 04 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Family Provision List
Before: Kunc J
Decision:
Interlocutory injunction granted

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION — Family provision — Notional estate — Whether Court has jurisdiction to grant interlocutory injunction restraining dealing in property liable to be designated as notional estate — Succession Act 2006 (NSW), s 62(3)
SUCCESSION — Family provision — Practice — Application to amend to introduce substantive equitable claim after Court-annexed mediation — Where no explanation for lateness and not based on facts not previously discoverable with reasonable diligence

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)
Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW)
Succession Act 2006 (NSW)
Succession Amendment (Family Provision) Bill 2008 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27
Boaz v Hyde [2014] NSWSC 1591
Deguara v Mercieca; unreported; 23 August 1988
Grizonic v Suttor [2004] NSWSC 137
Lo Surdo v Public Trustee [2003] NSWSC 837
Maiolo v Caristo [2008] NSWSC 236
Massie v Laundy; unreported; 7 February 1986
Moon v Gordon; unreported; 30 April 1996
Packo v Packo (1989) 17 NSWLR 316
Rayner v Schuttler; unreported; 29 January 1985
Young v Salkeld (1985) 4 NSWLR 375
Wentworth v Wentworth; unreported; 6 May 1992
Wentworth v Wentworth; unreported; 11 June 1992

Texts Cited:
Explanatory Note, Succession Amendment (Family Provision) Bill 2008 (NSW)
K Mason, “The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court” (1983) 57 ALJ 449
New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Report 110 Uniform succession laws: Family Provision, (May 2005)
New South Wales Legislative Council, Second Reading Speech (Hansard), 26 June 2008

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Gordana Skidmore (Plaintiff)
Aleksandra Salvatore (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel: J CY Lee (Plaintiff)
J Brown (Defendant)
Solicitors: Turner Freeman Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Marsdens Law Group (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2024/418446
Publication restriction: None

JUDGMENT

Summary

The plaintiff, Gordana Skidmore (aged 52), and the defendant, Aleksandra Salvatore (aged 40), are the children of the late Dragica Lukac and her late husband, Vlajko Lukac. Without disrespect, I shall refer to the various family members by their given names.
Vlajko predeceased Dragica in March 2022. Dragica died on 15 January 2023. Aleksandra is the sole beneficiary and executor of her mother’s will. Gordana last saw her mother in 2005.
The value of Dragica’s estate is approximately $59,000. However, in 2022 Dragica executed a transfer of a property at Liverpool (which Dragica had previously owned as joint tenant with Vlajko) to Aleksandra for no consideration. The property was sold in January 2025. Approximately $536,000 of the sale proceeds are currently held in Aleksandra’s solicitors’ trust account. That figure is what is left after sale costs, and $50,000 having been paid to Aleksandra.
By summons filed on 11 November 2024,…

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 Skidmore v Salvatore

Details

AGLC: Skidmore v Salvatore [2025] NSWSC 712
Case: [2025] NSWSC 712
Decision Date: 04 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Skidmore v Salvatore, the dispute involved the distribution of the estate of the deceased, Salvatore, and the application of family provision claims under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). The court was tasked with determining whether it had the jurisdiction to issue an interlocutory injunction preventing the dealing of property that was likely to be designated as part of the notional estate. Additionally, the court had to consider whether an application to amend the claim to introduce a substantive equitable claim after court-annexed mediation was appropriate, particularly in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay and where the new claim was not based on facts that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence.

The central legal issues the court needed to address were whether it possessed the authority to grant an interlocutory injunction in relation to property that might be included in the notional estate and if the amendment to the claim was justified under the circumstances. The court had to balance the principles of family provision against the procedural fairness and the potential prejudice to the parties involved.

The court determined that it did not have the jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction in relation to property that could be designated as part of the notional estate, as per section 62(3) of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). Regarding the amendment to the claim, the court found that the application was not warranted due to the lack of an adequate explanation for the delay and the fact that the new claim was not grounded in facts that could not have been discovered earlier. Consequently, the application to amend was dismissed, and no interlocutory injunction was issued.

Orders