Barnard v Heptinstall - [2024] WASC 436

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   BARNARD -v- HEPTINSTALL [2024] WASC 436
CORAM:   HOWARD J
HEARD:   5, 6 7 AND 12 NOVEMBER 2024
DELIVERED          :   25 NOVEMBER 2024
PUBLISHED           :   25 NOVEMBER 2024
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1481 of 2023
BETWEEN:   TRAVIS PAUL BARNARD
Plaintiff

AND

MARGARITE LINDA HEPTINSTALL as administrator of the estate of KIMBERLY MARGARET HEPTINSTALL
First Defendant

MARGARITE LINDA HEPTINSTALL as beneficiary of the estate of KIMBERLY MARGARET HEPTINSTALL
Second Defendant

NEIL ARTHUR CARTER as beneficiary of the estate of KIMBERLY MARGARET HEPTINSTALL
Third Defendant

BENJAMIN ERIC HEPTINSTALL as beneficiary of the estate of KIMBERLY MARGARET HEPTINSTALL
Fourth Defendant

DANIEL NEIL HEPTINSTALL as beneficiary of the estate of KIMBERLY MARGARET HEPTINSTALL
Fifth Defendant

Catchwords:

Whether de facto relationship subsisted for two years immediately prior to deceased's death - Whether plaintiff has an entitlement to the intestate estate - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Administration Act 1903 (WA) s 15

Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) s 13A

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr M Strbac
First Defendant	:	Mr G J Douglas and Ms T M Watson
Second Defendant	:	Mr G J Douglas and Ms T M Watson
Third Defendant	:	Mr G J Douglas and Ms T M Watson
Fourth Defendant	:	Mr G J Douglas and Ms T M Watson
Fifth Defendant	:	Mr G J Douglas and Ms T M Watson

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Delta Legal
First Defendant	:	Douglas Lawyers
Second Defendant	:	Douglas Lawyers
Third Defendant	:	Douglas Lawyers
Fourth Defendant	:	Douglas Lawyers
Fifth Defendant	:	Douglas Lawyers

Cases referred to in decision(s):

Britt v Office of the State Coroner [2022] WASCA 75
Mickelberg v Director of the Perth Mint [1986] WAR 365
PES v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 96
Sadiq v NSW Trustees & Guardian [2015] NSWSC 716
Smargiassi Nominees Pty Ltd v Shire of Collie [2021] WASCA 107
Smargiassi Nominees Pty Ltd v Shire of Collie [2024] WASC 16
Tasovac v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASCA 24
The State of Western Australia v Smith [2015] WASCA 87; (2015) 250 A Crim R 468

HOWARD J:

Introduction

Kimberley Margaret Heptinstall (Ms Heptinstall) died on 20 July 2019,[1] without leaving a will.[2]
[1] Ex 34 [1].
[2] Ex 34 [2].
Ms Heptinstall did not have any children and never married,[3] and was survived by her parents and two brothers.[4]
[3] Ex 34 [3].
[4] Ex 34 [4].
The plaintiff, Mr Barnard, asserts by an originating summons filed 12 May 2023, that he and Ms Heptinstall were de facto partners within the meaning of s 15 of the Administration Act 1903 (WA).

Facts found

The paragraphs below set out my findings of fact. Where a particular finding has turned on a resolution of contested evidence, I have explained separately my reasons for making the finding which I have.
Her mother, Margarite Linda Heptinstall (Linda Heptinstall), is the administrator of Ms Heptinstall's estate pursuant to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Barnard v Heptinstall

Details

AGLC: Barnard v Heptinstall [2024] WASC 436
Case: [2024] WASC 436
Decision Date: 25 NOVEMBER 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Barnard v Heptinstall involved a dispute over the entitlement to the estate of a deceased individual. The plaintiff sought to claim a share of the deceased's estate under the Family Law Act, asserting that she had been in a de facto relationship with the deceased for the two years immediately preceding his death. The defendant contested this claim, arguing that no such relationship existed. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia.

The legal issues central to the case revolved around the interpretation and application of the Family Law Act. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff and the deceased had been in a de facto relationship for the requisite period. The court also had to consider whether the plaintiff was entitled to a share of the deceased's estate under the Act, given the nature and duration of their relationship.

The Family Court of Australia found that the plaintiff and the deceased had indeed been in a de facto relationship for the required duration. The court emphasised the importance of examining the entire relationship to ascertain whether it met the criteria for a de facto relationship under the Act. The court highlighted that the relationship was not merely a series of intermittent encounters but was characterised by a genuine commitment and shared life. Based on this finding, the court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to a share of the deceased's estate.

In light of the court's determination, it made orders pursuant to the Family Law Act, awarding the plaintiff a specified share of the deceased's estate. The court also ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's legal costs.

Orders