Vince Di Vito

The applicants, Raymond Laxton and his son Gregory Elliott Laxton, sought appointment as joint guardians of property and personal care for Josephine Margaret Laxton.

The court had previously appointed them as joint guardians of personal care and required further evidence regarding guardianship of property.

After reviewing updated evidence, including a capacity assessment and financial information, the court found Josephine incapable of managing property and appointed Raymond and Gregory as joint guardians of property.

The court dispensed with the requirement to post security, citing the prohibitive cost and the family’s close, trusting relationships.

The guardians were ordered to pass their accounts within the time frame recommended by the Public Guardian and Trustee.

Costs were awarded only to the PGT.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking to amend her application to claim a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against the former matrimonial home and to add the husband's sister as a respondent.

The wife alleged two fraudulent conveyances: first, the husband secretly purchased the matrimonial home through a corporation he owned, and second, he transferred the property from the corporation to his sister without consideration.

The court granted the CPL and added the sister as a party, finding a high probability of the wife succeeding on her claims for an unequal division of net family property and support.

The court emphasized the husband's surreptitious conduct, non-disclosure, and lack of assets as factors favoring the CPL, and ordered the husband to pay costs.

The appellant sought to overturn a trial decision regarding pension division, arguing the trial judge misinterpreted a separation agreement by awarding a current pension value instead of a fixed amount.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's interpretation reasonable and consistent with the parties' objective intention for a pro-rata share of the pension's actual present value, and rejected the appellant's attempt to introduce fresh evidence as an abuse of process.