Weisbord & Ors v Rodny

WEISBORD & ORS
v
RODNY
[2020] HCASL 191
S45/2020

An extension of time is necessary to allow this application for special leave to appeal to proceed. The appeal foreshadowed by the application does not turn on the proper construction of s 8 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) but upon the findings of fact properly to be made upon the evidence. There is no sufficient reason to doubt the correctness of the findings of fact by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The application for special leave should be refused. Accordingly, it would be futile to grant an extension of time.
Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application, and providing that the applicants should pay the costs of the respondent, and that to the extent that the costs of the respondent on an indemnity basis are not satisfied by the costs paid by the applicants, the respondent should have an indemnity out of the estate of the deceased.

S.J. Gageler P.A. Keane

9 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Weisbord & Ors v Rodny case involved the applicants seeking an extension of time to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appeal was related to the succession of an estate under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). The High Court was tasked with determining whether to grant the application for special leave to appeal and an extension of time.

The central legal issue before the court was whether there were sufficient grounds to doubt the correctness of the findings of fact made by the Court of Appeal. The applicants argued that the appeal hinged on the proper construction of s 8 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), but the court needed to determine if the appeal actually depended on factual findings. Additionally, the court had to consider if there was any valid reason to grant an extension of time for the application for special leave to appeal.

The High Court held that the appeal did not turn on the construction of s 8 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) but rather on the findings of fact made by the Court of Appeal. The court found no sufficient reason to doubt the correctness of these findings. Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal was refused, and it was determined that granting an extension of time would be futile. The court ordered that the application be dismissed, with the applicants required to pay the costs of the respondent. If the respondent's costs on an indemnity basis were not fully covered by the applicants, the respondent would be entitled to an indemnity from the estate of the deceased.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established