Hooper v Rowley & 1 Or [2004] NSWCA 398

Hooper v Rowley & 1 Or [2004] NSWCA 398

Leave to appeal was required because the value of the appellant's right in the estate was less than $100,000 under s 101(2)(r)(ii) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW); the appellant had not established she was left without adequate provision under the Family Provision Act, and her claim had no merit given findings relating to her financial position and the strong countervailing claim of the second respondent.

Parties
Appellant: Barbara Hooper; First Respondent: Mavis Rowley; Second Respondent: Patricia Museth
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From Decision of the Supreme Court Equity Division
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Requirements, Family Provision Act Applications, Measure of Value in Appeals, Provision for Maintenance and Advancement, Competing Claims to Estate
Practice and Procedure Wills and Estates Leave to Appeal Requirements Family Provision Act Applications Measure of Value in Appeals Provision for Maintenance and Advancement Competing Claims to Estate

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barbara Hooper

Appellant

Mavis Rowley

First Respondent

Patricia Museth

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From Decision of the Supreme Court Equity Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal required under s 101(2)(r) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether measure of value threshold met for appeal as of right
  3. 3 Whether appellant left without adequate provision for proper maintenance and advancement under Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was required because the value of the appellant's right in the estate was less than $100,000 under s 101(2)(r)(ii) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW); the appellant had not established she was left without adequate provision under the Family Provision Act, and her claim had no merit given findings relating to her financial position and the strong countervailing claim of the second respondent.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
  • Appellant to pay the respondents' costs.