Le v Angius [2022] NSWSC 240

Le v Angius [2022] NSWSC 240

The plaintiff did not establish, on the balance of probabilities, an entitlement to an interim family provision order or interlocutory relief of continued occupation, due to significant factual dispute and insufficient evidence that provision in the form sought would likely be ordered at final hearing. The prospects of final relief justifying continued occupation were weak, and the balance of convenience, taking into account the high rental value and lack of undertaking as to damages, lay against granting interlocutory relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Family Provision Proceedings / Interlocutory (application for Interlocutory Relief Refused)
Outcome
Plaintiff's interlocutory application for continued occupation/interim provision refused; orders made for interim cash support and costs against plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['family Provision' 'de Facto Relationship' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'interim Provision' 'estate Administration' 'balance of Convenience']
['equity' 'succession Law'] ['family Provision' 'de Facto Relationship' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'interim Provision' 'estate Administration' 'balance of Convenience']

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

Interlocutory Application in Family Provision Proceedings / Interlocutory (application for Interlocutory Relief Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interlocutory relief to continue occupying the deceased's home" 'Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interim provision under Succession Act 2006 (NSW), s 62' 'Application of principles governing interlocutory injunctions and interim family provision orders']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff did not establish, on the balance of probabilities, an entitlement to an interim family provision order or interlocutory relief of continued occupation, due to significant factual dispute and insufficient evidence that provision in the form sought would likely be ordered at final hearing. The prospects of final relief justifying continued occupation were weak, and the balance of convenience, taking into account the high rental value and lack of undertaking as to damages, lay against granting interlocutory relief.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's interlocutory application for continued occupation/interim provision refused; orders made for interim cash support and costs against plaintiff.

Orders

  • ['Note the undertaking of the defendant (as legal representative of the estate) to pay the plaintiff $500 per week and permit continued occupation of the Waterloo shop, rent free pending further order.' "Plaintiff's application for interlocutory relief (occupation of Coogee property) dismissed." "Plaintiff to pay...