New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: Skinner v Frappell [2008] NSWCA 296 HEARING DATE(S): 12 September 2008
JUDGMENT DATE:
12 November 2008JUDGMENT OF: Basten JA at 1; Campbell JA at 18; Young CJ in Eq at 24 DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs. CATCHWORDS: APPEAL- Decison on fact- Powers of review by appellate courts discussed. - SUCCESSION- Appellant seeks revocation of probate or provision under Family Provision Act on basis of "compelling inferences"- Trial judge declines to draw inferences and dismisses claims- Held judge did not commit appealable error in so doing. LEGISLATION CITED: Family Provision Act 1982, s 6
Interpretation Act 1987, s 34CATEGORY: Principal judgment CASES CITED: Abalos v Australian Postal Commission [1990] HCA 47; 171 CLR 167
Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1
CSR Ltd v Della Maddalena (2006) 86 ALJR 458
Da Costa v Cockburn Salvage & Trading Pty Ltd [1970] HCA 43; 124 CLR 192
Dearman v Dearman [1908] HCA 87; 7 CLR 549
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission [1993] HCA 72; 177 CLR 472
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118
Goodman v Windeyer [1980] HCA 31; 144 CLR 490
Goodrich Aerospace Pty Ltd v Arsic (2006) 66 NSWLR 186
Jones v Hyde [1989] HCA 20; 63 ALJR 349
London Bank of Australia Ltd v Kendall [1920] HCA 53; 28 CLR 401
Paterson v Paterson [1953] HCA 74; 89 CLR 212
Petrohilos v Hunter (1991) 25 NSWLR 343
SS Hontestroom v SS Sagaporack [1927] AC 37
The Alice (1868) LR 2 PC 245
The Glannibanta (1876) 1 PD 283
Trustee for the Salvation Army (NSW) Property Trust v Becker [2007] NSWCA 136
Victorian Stevedoring and General Contracting Co Pty Ltd and Meakes v Dignan [1931] HCA 34; 46 CLR 73
Warren v Coombes [1979] HCA 9; 142 CLR 531
Whiteley Muir and Zwanenberg Ltd v Kerr (1966) 39 ALJR 505
Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 9; 208 CLR 460
Zuvela v Cosmarnan Concrete Pty Ltd [1996] HCA 30; 71 ALJR 29PARTIES: Anthony Robert Skinner (A)
Helene Marie Frappell (R1)
Leslie Frappell (R2)FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40800/07 COUNSEL: R W Evans and J Whyte (A)
L J Ellison SC (R)SOLICITORS: Lee Hourigan and Brooks (A)
Bradley J Smith (R)LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court - Equity Division LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2626/06 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: McDougall J LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 25 October 2007 LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: Skinner v Frappell [2007] NSWSC 1241
Skinner v Frappell (No 2) [2007] NSWSC 1244
CA 40800/07
SC 2626/06Wednesday 12 November 2008BASTEN JA
CAMPBELL JA
YOUNG CJ in EQ
SKINNER v FRAPPELL
Judgment
1 BASTEN JA: Pursuant to a will made by John Robert Skinner six days before his death on 1 November 2004, the first respondent, his sister Helene Marie Frappell, took the whole of his estate. The appellant, being the grandson of the deceased, sought…
Continue reading Skinner v Frappell
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Skinner v Frappell [2008] NSWCA 296
- Case
- [2008] NSWCA 296
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned a dispute over the estate of the late Mr. Skinner, brought by his daughter, Ms. Frappell. Ms. Frappell sought to revoke probate of Mr. Skinner's will or, alternatively, to obtain provision from his estate under the relevant family provision legislation. The primary judge had dismissed her claims, finding that she had not established grounds for revocation or provision. Ms. Frappell appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge had erred in declining to draw certain "compelling inferences" that Ms. Frappell contended supported her claims for revocation of probate and for provision from the estate. Specifically, the court had to consider the scope of an appellate court's power to review a trial judge's findings of fact, particularly in relation to the drawing of inferences.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's decision, holding that the judge had not committed any appealable error. The court reasoned that the trial judge was entitled to assess the evidence presented and determine whether the inferences sought by the appellant were sufficiently compelling to warrant the revocation of probate or the making of an order for provision. The appellate court found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's factual findings or the conclusions reached based on those findings, emphasizing the deference owed to a trial judge's assessment of evidence.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Ms. Frappell was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge had erred in declining to draw certain "compelling inferences" that Ms. Frappell contended supported her claims for revocation of probate and for provision from the estate. Specifically, the court had to consider the scope of an appellate court's power to review a trial judge's findings of fact, particularly in relation to the drawing of inferences.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's decision, holding that the judge had not committed any appealable error. The court reasoned that the trial judge was entitled to assess the evidence presented and determine whether the inferences sought by the appellant were sufficiently compelling to warrant the revocation of probate or the making of an order for provision. The appellate court found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's factual findings or the conclusions reached based on those findings, emphasizing the deference owed to a trial judge's assessment of evidence.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Ms. Frappell was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with 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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.