MARINIS v JEWELLER [2000] NSWCA 282

MARINIS v JEWELLER [2000] NSWCA 282

The appeal failed because the appellant had substantial realisable assets and income-producing properties, had led no evidence of current living expenses or future needs, and the Master was entitled to consider that the appellant's living arrangements with the deceased had assisted him in accumulating assets and to give some regard to the competing claims of the Greek niece and nephew. The asserted factual error about rental income from Unit 9 was not made when the judgment was read as a whole, and failure to provide Unit 10 to the appellant absolutely or for life was not appealable error in the circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Family Provision Act 1982 Proceedings / Appeal From Dismissal of Claim by Master Mc Laughlin in the Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; no special order for indemnity costs made.
Legal Topics
['de Facto Spouse Eligibility' 'adequate Provision for Proper Maintenance' 'competing Beneficiary Claims' 'discretionary Appellate Review' 'settlement Offers and Indemnity Costs']
['succession' 'family Provision' 'appellate Procedure' 'costs'] ['de Facto Spouse Eligibility' 'adequate Provision for Proper Maintenance' 'competing Beneficiary Claims' 'discretionary Appellate Review' 'settlement Offers and Indemnity Costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal in Family Provision Act 1982 Proceedings / Appeal From Dismissal of Claim by Master Mc Laughlin in the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Master erred in finding that the appellant had not been left without adequate provision for his proper maintenance under the Family Provision Act 1982.' 'Whether adequate provision required transfer of Unit 10 to the appellant absolutely or for his lifetime.' 'Whether the Master made a factual error by assuming the appellant could both live in Unit 9 and receive rent from it.' "Whether the appellant was an eligible person as the deceased's de facto spouse or as a partly dependant member of the deceased's household." 'Whether the respondent should receive indemnity costs because the appellant failed to obtain a result better than a settlement offer.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the appellant had substantial realisable assets and income-producing properties, had led no evidence of current living expenses or future needs, and the Master was entitled to consider that the appellant's living arrangements with the deceased had assisted him in accumulating assets and to give some regard to the competing claims of the Greek niece and nephew. The asserted factual error about rental income from Unit 9 was not made when the judgment was read as a whole, and failure to provide Unit 10 to the appellant absolutely or for life was not appealable error in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; no special order for indemnity costs made.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']