Peter Robert Durham v Bruce Albert Durham & Ors [2011] NSWCA 62

Peter Robert Durham v Bruce Albert Durham & Ors [2011] NSWCA 62

The appeal was dismissed because the primary judge's refusal to extend time for bringing a family provision claim was open on the evidence, no appealable error was identified, and the primary judge correctly applied the principles governing prejudice to other beneficiaries as well as the evaluative discretion required by the Family Provision Act. Furthermore, the grounds of appeal failed to comply with procedural rules requiring specificity.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court (equity Division) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['family Provision' 'application Out of Time' 'extension of Time' 'adequate Provision' 'discretionary Appeals']
['wills and Estates'] ['family Provision' 'application Out of Time' 'extension of Time' 'adequate Provision' 'discretionary Appeals']

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

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court (equity Division) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in refusing to extend time for making a claim for provision out of an estate under s 16(2) Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW)' "Whether the trial judge erred in determining the adequacy of provision for the appellant's maintenance and advancement in life" 'Whether the grounds of appeal complied with UCPR r 51.18(1)(e)']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the primary judge's refusal to extend time for bringing a family provision claim was open on the evidence, no appealable error was identified, and the primary judge correctly applied the principles governing prejudice to other beneficiaries as well as the evaluative discretion required by the Family Provision Act. Furthermore, the grounds of appeal failed to comply with procedural rules requiring specificity.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']