Weisbord v Rodny (No 3) [2021] NSWSC 458

Weisbord v Rodny (No 3) [2021] NSWSC 458

The defendant's proposed updating evidence was refused because he had not applied to reopen his case, had not identified the general nature of any updating evidence or significant change in circumstances, and s 59 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) did not require the Court to receive evidence of events occurring after judgment had been reserved; the family provision applications would therefore be determined on the evidence tendered at the hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling in Equity Succession Proceedings Concerning Family Provision Applications / After Court of Appeal Remitter; Defendant Sought Directions Permitting Service of Further Updating Evidence Before Determination of the Plaintiffs' Family Provision Applications
Outcome
The defendant's request for case management directions permitting further updating evidence was rejected. The Court will determine the plaintiffs' family provision applications on the evidence tendered at the hearing, invited further submissions on the effect of the Court of Appeal's reasoning, and made no formal...
Legal Topics
['informal Wills' 'family Provision' 're Opening Case' 'updating Evidence' 'reserved Judgment' 'remitter From Court of Appeal']
['succession' 'equity' 'evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['informal Wills' 'family Provision' 're Opening Case' 'updating Evidence' 'reserved Judgment' 'remitter From Court of Appeal']

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

Procedural Ruling in Equity Succession Proceedings Concerning Family Provision Applications / After Court of Appeal Remitter; Defendant Sought Directions Permitting Service of Further Updating Evidence Before Determination of the Plaintiffs' Family Provision Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties should be permitted to serve further updating evidence about matters occurring after the initial judgment before determination of the plaintiffs' family provision applications." 'Whether s 59(2) of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), referring to facts known to the Court at the time the order is made, required opportunity for updating evidence after judgment had been reserved.' 'Whether, absent a successful application to reopen the case, the family provision applications should be determined on the evidence before the Court when judgment was initially reserved.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's proposed updating evidence was refused because he had not applied to reopen his case, had not identified the general nature of any updating evidence or significant change in circumstances, and s 59 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) did not require the Court to receive evidence of events occurring after judgment had been reserved; the family provision applications would therefore be determined on the evidence tendered at the hearing.

Court Disposition

The defendant's request for case management directions permitting further updating evidence was rejected. The Court will determine the plaintiffs' family provision applications on the evidence tendered at the hearing, invited further submissions on the effect of the Court of Appeal's reasoning, and made no formal...

Orders

  • []