20 Dec 2023
Leave under s 88(2) was properly refused because, on the factual findings (notably the 2014 joint tenancy, the parties' likely intention that the survivor take the home, the deceased's codicil confirming the will, the widow's contributions and modest estate), the court was not satisfied that refusing leave would cause serious injustice to the applicant; therefore the Family Court's refusal was upheld.
29 Sept 2017
The appeal is dismissed because the Family Court did not err in exercise of its discretion under s24(2); the judge properly balanced the long unexplained delay (about 21 years), the weak and largely uncorroborated evidential basis for the alleged oral trust, the evidential prejudice caused by the deaths of key witnesses, and the real prejudice to respondents from upsetting long-settled affairs, and correctly concluded that in all the circumstances it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave to file proceedings out of time.
12 Feb 2015
Defendant had no real prospect of persuading the Family Court that giving effect to the s 21 agreement and amended agreement would cause serious injustice under s 21J(4); the agreements were clear, independently advised and substantially performed, defaults were admitted and unremedied, therefore there was no defence to summary judgment and the mortgagee was entitled to enforcement remedies, subject to a short conditional stay to permit payment.
4 May 2010
The Court held there was no breach of moral duty by the deceased and that the appellants had little or no prospect of success on a family protection claim; given the modest size of the estate, the disproportionate financial contribution by and the needs of the widow, and the deceased's primary obligation to his wife, refusal to grant leave under s 88(2) did not cause serious injustice and no further provision from the estate was warranted.