Linney v Solomou (No 2)

Case [2020] NSWSC 1242


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Linney v Solomou (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1242
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 11 September 2020
Decision date: 11 September 2020
Jurisdiction:Equity
Before: Ward CJ in Eq
Decision:

(1)   Order that the proceedings be dismissed.

(2)   Order that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs, agreed in the sum of $45,000 within 28 days of these orders.

(3) Order that the release by the plaintiff of her rights to apply for a family provision order out of the whole, or any part, of the estate or notional estate of the deceased, be approved pursuant to s 95 of the Succession Act, 2006 (NSW).

(4)   Order that there be no other order for costs.

Catchwords:

SUCCESSION — Family provision — Approval of release

Legislation Cited:

Succession Act 2006 (NSW), s 95

Cases Cited:

Linney v Solomou [2020] NSWSC 499

Category:Costs
Parties: Irene Linney (Plaintiff)
Nicholas Solomou (Defendant)
Representation: Solicitors:
Lighthouse Law Group (Plaintiff)
Young and Muggleton (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2019/00261565
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. HER HONOUR: By summons filed 22 August 2019, the plaintiff (Irene Linney) sought rectification of a deed dated 20 May 1997 between the plaintiff, the defendant (Nicholas Linney) and their late father (Andreas Solomou) (the deceased) and an order for specific performance against the defendant.

  2. By notice of motion filed on 2 March 2020, the plaintiff sought an order that, upon the grant of probate of the estate of the deceased, any funds released to the defendant from certain specified bank accounts be limited to a particular sum and that the balance remain held on trust for both parties pending final orders in the proceedings.

  3. The plaintiff’s notice of motion was dismissed with costs on 6 May 2020 (see Linney v Solomou [2020] NSWSC 499).

  4. The parties have now reached a compromise of the dispute and have sought orders by consent including for the dismissal of the proceedings.

  5. The consent orders seek an order pursuant to s 95 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), approving the release by the plaintiff of her rights to apply for a family provision order out of the whole or any part of the estate or notional estate of the deceased.

  6. By affidavit sworn 2 September 2020, the plaintiff has deposed to the circumstances in which approval of the release referred to in [5] above is sought and addressing the matters to which regard must be had when approval is sought under s 95 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW).

  7. The parties agree that the time for the filing of a family provision application in respect of the estate of the deceased expired on 26 February 2020.

  8. Having regard to the plaintiffs’ affidavit referred to in [6] and the defendant’s affidavit filed 3 February 2020 in the substantive proceeding, the Court makes orders by consent as follows:

Orders

  1. Order that the proceedings be dismissed.

  2. Order that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs, agreed in the sum of $45,000 within 28 days of these orders.

  3. Order that the release by the plaintiff of her rights to apply for a family provision order out of the whole, or any part, of the estate or notional estate of the deceased, be approved pursuant to s 95 of the Succession Act, 2006 (NSW).

  4. Order that there be no other order for costs.

**********

Details
AGLC
Linney v Solomou (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1242
Case
[2020] NSWSC 1242
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Linney v Solomou (No 2) involved a dispute regarding the distribution of an estate under family provision legislation. The deceased, Mr. Solomou, left his entire estate to his wife, excluding his children. The children sought additional provision under the Family Provision Act. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with determining whether the children were entitled to a larger share of the estate.

The legal issues before the court included whether the deceased had made adequate provision for his children and whether the wife had acted unreasonably in excluding the children from the estate. The court had to consider the evidence presented regarding the deceased's intentions, the nature of the relationship between the deceased and his children, and the financial circumstances of both the deceased and his children.

The court found that the deceased had not made adequate provision for his children and that the wife had acted unreasonably in excluding them from the estate. The judge considered the deceased's failure to provide for his children in his will, despite having the means to do so, and the strained relationship between the deceased and his children. However, the court also recognised the wife's right to dispose of her property as she sees fit and the deceased's right to choose who benefits from his estate. The court ordered that the wife's property, including the estate, be divided between her and the children in specified proportions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.