Van Gorp v Davy [2022] NSWCA 117

Van Gorp v Davy [2022] NSWCA 117

The applicant did not have standing to set aside or vary the consent orders as he was not a party to the family provision proceedings, nor were his rights directly affected, and the minor’s interests were adequately represented by a court-appointed tutor. Application for family provision by the applicant, if any, must be commenced by fresh proceedings; this did not confer appellate standing. There was no error of principle in the primary judge’s refusal of relief, and no ground to grant leave to appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal (civil) / Appellate; Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs. Notice of motion filed 20 June 2022 dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'standing' 'family Provision' 'guardianship of Infants' 'consent Orders' 'tutorship' 'notional Estate']
['civil Procedure' 'succession Law'] ['leave to Appeal' 'standing' 'family Provision' 'guardianship of Infants' 'consent Orders' 'tutorship' 'notional Estate']

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 (civil) / Appellate; Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant (Mr Van Gorp) had standing to seek to set aside or vary consent orders made in family provision proceedings to which he was not a party and in which he had no direct interest' "Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the primary judge's interlocutory orders dismissing the applicant's application"]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not have standing to set aside or vary the consent orders as he was not a party to the family provision proceedings, nor were his rights directly affected, and the minor’s interests were adequately represented by a court-appointed tutor. Application for family provision by the applicant, if any, must be commenced by fresh proceedings; this did not confer appellate standing. There was no error of principle in the primary judge’s refusal of relief, and no ground to grant leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs. Notice of motion filed 20 June 2022 dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss summons seeking leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss notice of motion filed 20 June 2022.' "Order the applicant to pay the respondents' costs of the proceedings."]