NSW Caselaw
SMITH v BATES
SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL SAMUELS, MAHONEY and MEAGHER JJA
24 June 1991, 24 June 1991
[1991] NSWCA 251
FAMILY PROVISION ACT, 1982 — no question of principle.
Samuels JA Mr Weber, we do not need your assistance despite the earnest argument put to us by counsel for the appellant. It seems to me that this is a very plain case indeed. I can see no error in the way in which the Master exercised his discretion which would justify the intervention of this Court. Indeed, I am content to say that I agree with the reasons which the Master gave for dismissing the summons. In my judgment the appeal should be dismissed with costs.
Mahoney JA I agree. Meagher JA I also agree.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Counsel for the Appellant: JR WILSON
Counsel for the Respondent: RJ WEBER
Solicitors for the Appellant: TERNES and SALIER
Solicitors for the Respondent: MALLESONS STEPHEN JAQUES
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate