Stevens & Anor. v Reiner [2004] NSWCA 246

Stevens & Anor. v Reiner [2004] NSWCA 246

The appeal failed because the Master's calculation of $810,000 was adequately apparent, provision referable to a two-bedroom unit was no more than adequate for the respondent's proper maintenance, the $243,000 had been deducted, there was no basis requiring deduction of the joint account money or French money, and although the Master should have made findings about the $120,000, the issue had not been put in a way requiring a finding adverse to the respondent and was not shown to have affected the result.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Family Provision Act Orders in Supreme Court Equity Division / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['family Provision and Maintenance' "widower's Application" 'adequacy of Provision' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'estate Assets' 'appellate Review']
['succession'] ['family Provision and Maintenance' "widower's Application" 'adequacy of Provision' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'estate Assets' 'appellate Review']

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 From Family Provision Act Orders in Supreme Court Equity Division / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Master's decision was vitiated by failing to explain how the legacy of $810,000 was determined." 'Whether provision for a one-bedroom unit was sufficient for the respondent rather than provision referable to a two-bedroom unit.' 'Whether the Master erred by failing to deduct sums of $243,749.72, $56,980, $120,000 and $11,000 in French currency from the award.' 'Whether the Master should have made findings as to the existence and fate of $120,000 said to have been found in cash.' "Whether the Master's adverse credit finding about the respondent concerning $243,000 was taken into account in assessing the respondent's financial position and claim."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the Master's calculation of $810,000 was adequately apparent, provision referable to a two-bedroom unit was no more than adequate for the respondent's proper maintenance, the $243,000 had been deducted, there was no basis requiring deduction of the joint account money or French money, and although the Master should have made findings about the $120,000, the issue had not been put in a way requiring a finding adverse to the respondent and was not shown to have affected the result.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']