Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Smoje v Forrester [2017] NSWCA 308 Hearing dates: 24 August 2017 Date of orders: 04 December 2017 Decision date: 04 December 2017 Before: Basten JA at [1];
Macfarlan JA at [2];
Meagher JA at [3]Decision: 1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside orders 1, 2, 3 and 4 made on 30 May 2017 and in place thereof:
(a) dismiss the plaintiff’s summons;
(b) the defendant’s costs of the proceedings be paid out of the estate of the deceased (Miryana Smoje) on the indemnity basis.
3. Appellant’s costs of the appeal be paid out of the deceased’s estate on the indemnity basis.
4. The amount of $750,000 paid into court by the defendant be paid to the defendant’s solicitors or, if security was provided in lieu of that payment, that such security be delivered up to the defendant’s solicitors.Catchwords: SUCCESSION – family provision and maintenance – where deceased terminally ill and living in a hotel room – where respondent visited the deceased to provide her with care in the months preceding her death occasionally staying overnight – whether respondent and deceased were “living together” in a “close personal relationship” at the time of her death
EVIDENCE – expert evidence – where primary judge made findings as to mental disability suffered by respondent – where no expert evidence as to existence of any such disability and how it might affect respondent’s behaviour or evidence – whether findings, including as to credibility, availableLegislation Cited: Succession Act 2006 (NSW), ss 57, 59 Cases Cited: Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22
Mitchell v Cullingral Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 389
Strinic v Singh (2009) 74 NSWLR 419; [2009] NSWCA 15
Waterways Authority v Fitzgibbon [2005] HCA 57; (2005) 79 ALJR 1816Category: Principal judgment Parties: Neven Smoje (Appellant)
David Forrester (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
M Painter SC and R Bianchi (Appellant)
I Coleman SC and L Clarke (Respondent)Solicitors:
Wills & Estates Legal Service (Appellant)
Turner Freeman (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/191999 Publication restriction: None. Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Equity
- Citation:
- [2017] NSWSC 482
- Date of Decision:
- 4 May 2017
- Before:
- Lindsay J
- File Number(s):
- 2015/00291238
Headnote
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
In the months preceding her death, the deceased was living in a hotel room. She was terminally ill. The respondent, whilst residing in other accommodation, would visit her to provide care and support and occasionally spend the night sleeping on her floor. The primary judge (Lindsay J) found that the respondent was in a “close personal relationship” and “living together” with the deceased at the time of her death, and therefore eligible to make an application for provision out of the deceased’s estate. In doing so, his Honour viewed the respondent’s evidence in light of his asserted mental illness, which was not the subject of expert evidence. His Honour made…
Continue reading Smoje v Forrester
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Smoje v Forrester [2017] NSWCA 308
- Case
- [2017] NSWCA 308
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent and the deceased were living together in a close personal relationship. Additionally, the court considered whether the primary judge was entitled to make findings about a mental disability suffered by the respondent, including its impact on his behaviour and credibility, in the absence of any expert evidence to support such findings.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the primary judge's orders. The court reasoned that the evidence did not support a finding that the respondent and the deceased were "living together" in the sense contemplated by the relevant legislation. The court also found that the primary judge had impermissibly made findings regarding the respondent's mental state and its effect on his credibility without the necessary expert evidence. Consequently, the plaintiff's summons was dismissed.
The orders made by the Court of Appeal included setting aside the primary judge's orders, dismissing the plaintiff's summons, and ordering that the defendant's costs of the proceedings and the appellant's costs of the appeal be paid out of the deceased's estate on an indemnity basis. The court also ordered the release of funds paid into court by the defendant.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside orders 1, 2, 3 and 4 made on 30 May 2017 and in place thereof:
(a) dismiss the plaintiff’s summons;
(b) the defendant’s costs of the proceedings be paid out of the estate of the deceased (Miryana Smoje) on the indemnity basis.
3. Appellant’s costs of the appeal be paid out of the deceased’s estate on the indemnity basis.
4. The amount of $750,000 paid into court by the defendant be paid to the defendant’s solicitors or, if security was provided in lieu of that payment, that such security be delivered up to the defendant’s solicitors.
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.