Panagopoulos v Panagopoulos [2022] NSWSC 1151

Panagopoulos v Panagopoulos [2022] NSWSC 1151

The plaintiff failed to show sufficient cause for not bringing his family provision claim within time, as he was aware or ought to have been aware of his life estate in the property soon after probate. Even if time was extended, the plaintiff would not receive further provision: the provision made by the will (a life estate) was not shown to be inadequate at the relevant time, and present hardship resulted from self-induced bankruptcy and litigation. Making provision now would unfairly prejudice other beneficiaries, given the deterioration of the plaintiff’s financial position was due to his own actions and delay.

Parties
Plaintiff: Jim Panagopoulos; Defendant/cross Claimant: George Panagopoulos
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Claim in Probate/succession Context / Final Judgment After Hearing, Post Cross Claims and Multiple Amendments
Outcome
Plaintiff's claims dismissed; defendant/cross claimant granted relief on cross claim and costs.
Legal Topics
Family Provision Application, Extension of Time for Claim, Rectification of Will, Bankruptcy and Succession, Costs in Succession Proceedings
Succession Law Equity Family Provision Application Extension of Time for Claim Rectification of Will Bankruptcy and Succession Costs in Succession Proceedings

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jim Panagopoulos

Plaintiff

George Panagopoulos

Defendant/cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Family Provision Claim in Probate/succession Context / Final Judgment After Hearing, Post Cross Claims and Multiple Amendments

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to family provision from the deceased's estate under the Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether sufficient cause is shown to extend time for making a family provision application nearly 18 years out of time
  3. 3 Effect of the plaintiff's bankruptcy on succession entitlements and standing

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to show sufficient cause for not bringing his family provision claim within time, as he was aware or ought to have been aware of his life estate in the property soon after probate. Even if time was extended, the plaintiff would not receive further provision: the provision made by the will (a life estate) was not shown to be inadequate at the relevant time, and present hardship resulted from self-induced bankruptcy and litigation. Making provision now would unfairly prejudice other beneficiaries, given the deterioration of the plaintiff’s financial position was due to his own actions and delay.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claims dismissed; defendant/cross claimant granted relief on cross claim and costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claims in his second further amended statement of claim are dismissed.
  • Declare on the cross claimant's cross claim that the cross claimant is entitled to be paid $13,824 out of the estate of the deceased, and that the cross claimant has a charge over the estate to secure that payment.