Liosatos v Liosatos [2025] NSWSC 44

Liosatos v Liosatos [2025] NSWSC 44

Service on George Liosatos of a Notice of Claim is unnecessary and impracticable within s 61(2)(b) Succession Act 2006 (NSW) because evidence established George does not wish to be located or notified, was substantively informed of his rights and consciously declined to engage, and further searches would not be productive. It is also impracticable and unnecessary to identify or attempt to serve possible ex-nuptial children of the deceased in these circumstances. Their interests are disregarded and family provision orders are made accordingly.

Parties
Plaintiff: Dilsa Elena Liosatos; Defendant/executor: Andres Cruz Liosatos
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Claim / Final Determination (consent Orders Following Submissions; Orders and Notations Made)
Outcome
Final orders made; family provision claim resolved on consent; interests of George Liosatos and any ex-nuptial children of the deceased disregarded under s 61(2)(b) Succession Act.
Legal Topics
Family Provision, Service of Notices, Disregard of Interests Under S 61 Succession Act, Search and Notification Obligations
Succession Law Equity Family Provision Service of Notices Disregard of Interests Under S 61 Succession Act Search and Notification Obligations

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 35 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dilsa Elena Liosatos

Plaintiff

Andres Cruz Liosatos

Defendant/executor

Procedural Posture

Family Provision Claim / Final Determination (consent Orders Following Submissions; Orders and Notations Made)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should disregard the interests of a non-applicant son (George Liosatos) and unidentified ex-nuptial children under s 61 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) on grounds of service being unnecessary, unreasonable or impracticable
  2. 2 Practical requirements and standards in locating and notifying eligible persons in family provision proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Service on George Liosatos of a Notice of Claim is unnecessary and impracticable within s 61(2)(b) Succession Act 2006 (NSW) because evidence established George does not wish to be located or notified, was substantively informed of his rights and consciously declined to engage, and further searches would not be productive. It is also impracticable and unnecessary to identify or attempt to serve possible ex-nuptial children of the deceased in these circumstances. Their interests are disregarded and family provision orders are made accordingly.

Court Disposition

Final orders made; family provision claim resolved on consent; interests of George Liosatos and any ex-nuptial children of the deceased disregarded under s 61(2)(b) Succession Act.

Orders

  • Family provision orders made finalising claim (by consent).
  • Notation that interests of George Liosatos disregarded on grounds of unnecessary and impracticable service of Notice of Claim.