The Court of Appeal held that in determining whether a release agreement is fair and reasonable under s 95(4)(c) of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), the court is not required to undertake a detailed mathematical analysis of asset values, the releasor's benefit, or the financial position of interested parties, applying [name withheld] v [name withheld]. The Court further held that a deed executed by one party and delivered to the other for counter-execution constitutes delivery in escrow, with the escrow condition being the counter-party's execution, and that characterising the transaction in those terms did not raise a new issue requiring separate notice or procedural fairness accommodations for a self-represented litigant where the binding nature of the deed was squarely pleaded. On the capacity issue, the Court confirmed that legal incapacity is task-specific (applying [name withheld] v [name withheld]), that the relevant question is not whether a litigant in person can represent themselves well, and refused to admit fresh evidence or permit new grounds where the issue was raised and declined at trial and the proposed evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.