Wilcox v Chapple

In *Wilcox v Chapple*, the plaintiff, Mr Wilcox, appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against a decision that dismissed his claims concerning rural properties allegedly held on trust. Mr Wilcox had been aware for many years that a letter indicated he was a beneficiary of a trust concerning these properties. However, he had deliberately chosen not to advance any claims based on this trust in earlier litigation seeking family provision orders. That earlier litigation was compromised by a release approved by the Court.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether Mr Wilcox's claims were barred by the release executed in the earlier proceedings, or by the doctrines of *res judicata* or *Anshun* estoppel. Additionally, the Court considered whether Mr Wilcox had established his claims on their merits, and whether he should have been permitted to rely on further evidence on appeal, examining the relationship between an application to tender fresh evidence and a ground of appeal challenging the rejection of that same evidence at trial. The Court also considered whether the plaintiff had established that the evidence was not available by reasonable diligence and whether it was likely to be material.

The Court of Appeal found that the release executed in the earlier family provision proceedings was a complete bar to the present claims concerning the rural properties. The Court reasoned that the terms of the release were sufficiently broad to encompass the claims now being advanced, and that Mr Wilcox had made a conscious and informed decision not to pursue these trust-based claims in the prior litigation. Consequently, the Court held that the doctrines of *res judicata* and *Anshun* estoppel also applied, preventing the relitigation of issues that were, or could have been, raised in the earlier proceedings. The application to adduce further evidence was dismissed as the evidence was not likely to be material and could have been obtained with reasonable diligence.

The Appellant’s notice of motion filed 23 May 2025 was dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed. Mr Wilcox was ordered to pay the first and second respondents’ costs of the appeal, including the costs of the notice of motion.