Timothy Lockhart

The defendant, Safther Akram, brought a motion to extend the limitation period for filing a spousal election for an equalization payment under section 6(1) of the Family Law Act.

The plaintiff, Carlo Castiglione (Maria's brother and purported executor), opposed, arguing that his counsel's prior consent to an extension was unauthorized.

The court granted the extension, finding that Safther met the three-part test under section 2(8) of the Act: there were apparent grounds for relief, the delay was incurred in good faith (relying on a formal consent), and no substantial prejudice would be suffered by the estate or the plaintiff.

The defendant, the surviving spouse of the deceased, brought a motion to extend the limitation period to file a spousal election for an equalization payment under section 6(1) of the Family Law Act.

The plaintiff, the deceased's brother and purported executor, opposed the extension.

The court applied the three-part test under section 2(8) of the Family Law Act and found that there were apparent grounds for relief, the delay was incurred in good faith due to reliance on a prior consent, and no substantial prejudice would result.

The motion was granted, allowing the defendant 60 days to file the election.

The court addressed a motion for directions in an estates dispute.

The motion did not proceed due to both parties' non-compliance with the Central West Practice Direction regarding electronic document uploading to Case Centre.

The judge highlighted significant issues with unbookmarked and unhyperlinked materials, which impeded the court's ability to prepare efficiently.

The motion was adjourned, and revised materials were ordered, with costs of the day fixed at $1,500.00 in the cause.

The judge emphasized that counsel's failure to comply with electronic filing requirements should not be charged to clients.

The defendants brought a motion to admit a supplementary affidavit from Bibi Goriah, sworn after cross-examinations, to be considered at a summary judgment motion.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing prejudice and a violation of the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The court applied the four-part test under Rule 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the evidence relevant and that any potential prejudice could be mitigated by allowing the plaintiffs further cross-examinations and the opportunity to file reply evidence.

The court also considered counsel's oversight as a factor.

The motion to admit the affidavit was granted, but costs were not awarded to the successful defendants due to the legitimate concerns raised by the plaintiffs.