Hooper v Rowley & 1 Or [2004] NSWCA 398

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : Hooper v Rowley & 1 Or [2004] NSWCA 398 HEARING DATE(S) : 02/11/04 JUDGMENT DATE : 11 November 2004

JUDGMENT OF : Sheller JA at 1; Ipp JA at 2; Bryson JA at 28 DECISION : Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS : PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Whether leave to appeal required - Measure of value of the appellant's right for the purposes of s 101(2)(r)(ii) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) - Where appeal would not settle any legal principle - Where litigation already consumed excessive proportion of estate - WILLS - Application under Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW) - Two stage process under Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201 - Whether appellant left without adequate provision for proper maintenance and advancement - Competing claim of second respondent - Where second respondent had lived in the property the subject of the claim all her life - Where whole of property had been left to the second respondent under the terms of the Will. D LEGISLATION CITED : Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 101(2)(r) Amos v Fraser (1906) 4 CLR 78 Attorney-General (Q); Ex rel Duncan v Andrews (1979) 145 CLR 573 CASES CITED : Ballas v Theophilos [No 1] (1957) 97 CLR 186 Bladwell v Davis [2004] NSWCA 170 Oertel v Crocker (1947) 75 CLR 261 Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201 Barbara Hooper (Appellant) PARTIES : Mavis Rowley (First Respondent) Patricia Museth (Second Respondent) FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40456/03 COUNSEL : In Person (Appellant) M Gorrick (First & Second Respondents) SOLICITORS : In Person (Appellant) L Rundle & Co (First & Second Respondents)