Ramsay v Schiller [2012] NSWSC 596

Ramsay v Schiller [2012] NSWSC 596

The determination of the separate question regarding whether the property could be designated as notional estate would not conclude the substantive proceedings, would not substantially narrow the issues, and only provide limited benefit in terms of time and expense. The Court, exercising its discretion, considered that the separate determination was not warranted and dismissed the defendants' notice of motion.

Parties
Plaintiff: Jennifer Ramsay; Plaintiff: Lynn Maree DeFillippis; Defendant: Loretta Mary Schiller; Defendant: Penny Ann Lowe
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Application / Interlocutory Decision (notice of Motion for Separate Determination Dismissed)
Outcome
Defendants' notice of motion for separate determination dismissed.
Legal Topics
Family Provision, Notional Estate, Separate Determination of Questions
Succession Law Civil Procedure Family Provision Notional Estate Separate Determination of Questions

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jennifer Ramsay

Plaintiff

Lynn Maree DeFillippis

Plaintiff

Loretta Mary Schiller

Defendant

Penny Ann Lowe

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Family Provision Application / Interlocutory Decision (notice of Motion for Separate Determination Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the question of whether the transfer of property to the first defendant constitutes a relevant property transaction for notional estate purposes under the Succession Act 2006 be determined separately from other issues in the proceedings?

Ratio Decidendi

The determination of the separate question regarding whether the property could be designated as notional estate would not conclude the substantive proceedings, would not substantially narrow the issues, and only provide limited benefit in terms of time and expense. The Court, exercising its discretion, considered that the separate determination was not warranted and dismissed the defendants' notice of motion.

Court Disposition

Defendants' notice of motion for separate determination dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendants' notice of motion filed on 2 March 2012 is dismissed.
  • By consent, the costs of the Defendants' notice of motion filed on 2 March 2012 be the Plaintiffs' costs in the cause.