Albecz v Bloom [2024] NSWCA 166

Albecz v Bloom [2024] NSWCA 166

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not identify any question of principle, material error of fact or reasonably clear injustice. The primary judge made no error in refusing to appoint an interim administrator, in treating the respondent as a disinterested executor acting in the administration of the estate and entitled to indemnity for legal costs, in declining to decide disputed issues concerning the validity of the 2018 Will or the respondent's credibility on an interlocutory motion, in rejecting any obligation to seek judicial advice, and in ordering costs to follow the event.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal in Probate Proceedings / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders of the New South Wales Supreme Court, Equity Division
Outcome
Summons for leave to appeal dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs in this Court.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'administrator Pendente Lite' "executor's Indemnity From Estate" 'judicial Advice' 'costs Following the Event']
['appeals' 'probate and Administration' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'administrator Pendente Lite' "executor's Indemnity From Estate" 'judicial Advice' 'costs Following the Event']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal in Probate Proceedings / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders of the New South Wales Supreme Court, Equity Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted from interlocutory orders dismissing an application to appoint an interim administrator in probate proceedings.' 'Whether the executor should be prohibited from using estate funds for legal expenses in the substantive probate proceedings.' 'Whether the executor should be required to reimburse moneys already paid from the estate for legal costs.' 'Whether the executor was acting to protect personal interests rather than administering the estate.' 'Whether the executor was obliged to seek judicial advice before defending the probate proceedings.' 'Whether the adverse costs order below involved appealable error.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not identify any question of principle, material error of fact or reasonably clear injustice. The primary judge made no error in refusing to appoint an interim administrator, in treating the respondent as a disinterested executor acting in the administration of the estate and entitled to indemnity for legal costs, in declining to decide disputed issues concerning the validity of the 2018 Will or the respondent's credibility on an interlocutory motion, in rejecting any obligation to seek judicial advice, and in ordering costs to follow the event.

Court Disposition

Summons for leave to appeal dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs in this Court.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the summons for leave to appeal filed 2 May 2024.' "Order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs in this Court."]