Sgro v Thompson [2017] NSWCA 326

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Sgro v Thompson [2017] NSWCA 326 Hearing dates: 20 September 2017 Decision date: 15 December 2017 Before: McColl JA at [1]; Payne JA at [2]; White JA at [8] Decision: 1. Appeal allowed. 2. Set aside the orders (a), (b) and (c) made on 21 December 2016. 3. In their place, order that the summons be dismissed. 4. Order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and the proceedings below. 5. Grant the respondent a certificate pursuant to the Suitors' Fund Act 1912 (NSW) in respect of the costs of the appeal. Catchwords: SUCCESSION — family provision — appeals — deceased left estate to one of two daughters – both daughters were loving and attentive children – respondent had financial need – respondent had received early inheritance - whether primary judge erred in ordering that provision be made under s 59 of Succession Act 2006 (NSW) in favour of respondent — whether appellate intervention warranted — consideration of correctness of "two-stage" approach in application of s 59 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) — whether primary judge erred in assessment of appellant's claim on estate - whether primary judge failed to give proper consideration to deceased's assessment of what was the appropriate testamentary disposition Legislation Cited: Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW), s 7 and s 9(2) Succession Act 2006 (NSW), Ch 3 Cases Cited: Andrew v Andrew (2012) 81 NSWLR 656; [2012] NSWCA 308 Poletti v Jones [2015] NSWCA 107; (2015) 324 ALR 641 Underwood v Gaudron [2015] NSWCA 269 Burke v Burke [2015] NSWCA 195 Andrew v Andrew [2011] NSWSC 115 Bates v Cooke [2015] NSWCA 278 Boettcher v Driscoll (2014) 119 SASR 523; [2014] SASC 86 Chan v Chan [2016] NSWCA 222 Chapple v Wilcox (2014) 87 NSWLR 646; [2014] NSWCA 392 de Angelis v de Angelis [2003] VSC 432 Golosky v Golosky [1993] NSWCA 111; BC9302134 Hunter v Hunter (1987) 8 NSWLR 573 Jones (a pseudonym) v Smith (a pseudonym) [2016] VSCA 178 Lloyd-Williams v Mayfield (2005) 63 NSWLR 1; [2005] NSWCA 189 McCosker v McCosker (1957) 97 CLR 566; [1957] HCA 82 McKenzie v Topp [2004] VSC 90 Phillips v James (2014) 85 NSWLR 619; [2014] NSWCA 4 Poletti v Jones [2015] NSWCA 107 Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith v Scales (1962) 107 CLR 9; [1962] HCA 19 Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201; [1994] HCA 40 Slack v Rogan; Palffy v Rogan (2013) 85 NSWLR 253; [2013] NSWSC 522 Smith v Johnson [2015] NSWCA 297 Stott v Cook (1960) 33 ALJR 447 Taylor v Farrugia [2009] NSWSC 801 Thompson v Sgro [2016] NSWSC 1869 Vigolo v Bostin (2005) 221 CLR 191; [2005] HCA 11 Texts Cited: A Gray, "Family Provision Applications: A Critique" (2017) 91 ALJ 750 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Carmela Sgro (Appellant) Rosa Thompson (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: J E Sexton SC with H Chiu (Appellant) R W Tregenza (Respondent)