RADE RAJKO MARICIC v IVANNE NATALIES JONES [1991] NSWCA 192

RADE RAJKO MARICIC v IVANNE NATALIES JONES [1991] NSWCA 192

The appeal was dismissed because the claims in the appellant's summons were either clearly an abuse of process, disclosed no cause of action, or were futile, and no real issue to be tried existed. The decision of Needham J to summarily dismiss the proceedings was within his power and discretion. No injustice was occasioned to the appellant by confirming the dismissal.

Parties
Appellant: Rade Rajko Maricic; Respondent: Ivanne Natalies Jones; Respondent: Adrian Ronald Down; Respondent: Jean Beverly Hill
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 April 1991
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Family Provision Claims, Summary Dismissal
Practice and Procedure Succession Law Family Law Abuse of Process Family Provision Claims Summary Dismissal

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rade Rajko Maricic

Appellant

Ivanne Natalies Jones

Respondent

Adrian Ronald Down

Respondent

Jean Beverly Hill

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the summons was an abuse of process and should be summarily dismissed
  2. 2 Whether any real issue to be tried existed under the Family Provision Act 1982
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was deprived of property rights in Breach of previous court orders

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the claims in the appellant's summons were either clearly an abuse of process, disclosed no cause of action, or were futile, and no real issue to be tried existed. The decision of Needham J to summarily dismiss the proceedings was within his power and discretion. No injustice was occasioned to the appellant by confirming the dismissal.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay the costs of the first and second respondents