Legal Research
Cases
Barnes v De Jesus

Barnes v De Jesus

Case [2001] NSWSC 19 2 February 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Barnes v De Jesus [2001] NSWSC 19

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Probate List

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 105826 of 1999

HEARING DATE(S): 30 November 2000 and 1 December 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
2 February 2001

PARTIES :

Leila Alison Barnes (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant)
Antonio Manuel De Jesus (Defendant/Cross-Claimant)

JUDGMENT OF: Windeyer J at 1

COUNSEL : Mr D W Elliott (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant)
Mr L Ellison (Defendant/Cross-Claimant)

SOLICITORS: Ticli Blaxland (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant)
S J Nicolau & Co (Defendant)/Cross-Claimant)

CATCHWORDS: SUCCESSION - letters of administration - competing applications for grant between daughter and alleged de facto husband - whether de facto relationship established - DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS - whether established

LEGISLATION CITED: Wills Probate and Administration Act 1898 ss61B(3B); 61B(13)

CASES CITED: Roy v Sturgeon (1986) 11 NSWLR 454
Simonis v Perpetual Trustee Company Limited (1987) 21 NSWLR 677

DECISION: See paragraph 29

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
PROBATE LIST

WINDEYER J

FRIDAY 2 FEBRUARY 2001

105826/99 LEILA ALISON BARNES v ANTONIO MANUEL DE JESUS

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1 Doris Lillian Barnes died on 17 November 1996 a divorced intestate. She left two children, Leila Alison Barnes (the plaintiff) and Edward Jesse Barnes. The plaintiff seeks a grant of Letters of Administration of her mother’s estate. Her brother has consented to such a grant.

2 Antonio Manuel De Jesus, the defendant, by cross-claim seeks a grant of administration on the grounds that he was the de facto husband of the deceased for a continuous period of not less that two years before her death.

3 The deceased’s estate consisted of a house at 48 Holmsdale Street, Marrickville, with an estimated value of $180,000, a Nissan Wagon with an estimated value of $1,500 and a Savings Account with the St. George Bank of $1,137. The liabilities of the estate amount to around $2,000.

4 It is clear that if Mr De Jesus succeeds in establishing that he was in a de facto relationship with the deceased for the required period he will be entitled to the whole of the estate: ss61B(3B) and 61B(13) of the Wills Probate and Administration Act 1898.

The Facts

5 Doris Lillian Barnes was born on 27 June 1937, and Antonio De Jesus was born on 25 October 1952.

6 The deceased married Edward Robert (“Ted”) Barnes on 5 November 1955. They were divorced on 19 February 1991. There were two children from this relationship: the plaintiff born on 25 April 1964 and her brother born on 20 October 1955.

7 The deceased was also involved in a marriage of convenience on 23 February 1991 with Peter Aghimien, apparently to enable him to gain residence in Australia. This marriage was dissolved on 11 November 1994. This marriage is of no significance in this case. The parties to it never lived together.

8 Mr De Jesus met the deceased in late 1990. At that time he was married but separated from his wife. He started “seeing her” and commenced a sexual relationship soon afterwards. In 1991 he commenced work in…

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 Barnes v De Jesus

Details

AGLC: Barnes v De Jesus [2001] NSWSC 19
Case: [2001] NSWSC 19
Decision Date: 2 February 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Barnes v De Jesus involved a dispute over the succession of a deceased's estate. The deceased, Mr. Barnes, passed away without leaving a will, prompting his daughter, Ms. Barnes, to apply for letters of administration to manage his estate. However, Mr. De Jesus, who claimed to have been in a de facto relationship with Mr. Barnes, also applied for letters of administration, asserting that he was the rightful heir under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the court was whether a de facto relationship existed between Mr. Barnes and Mr. De Jesus that would entitle the latter to succeed to Mr. Barnes' estate. The court needed to determine the criteria for establishing a de facto relationship under the Succession Act and assess whether those criteria were met in this case. This required a detailed examination of the nature and duration of their relationship, the extent of their shared financial and domestic life, and other relevant factors.

In delivering the judgment, the court thoroughly examined the evidence presented by both parties. It considered the length of the relationship, the level of commitment between the parties, and their shared living arrangements. The court concluded that while the relationship between Mr. Barnes and Mr. De Jesus was genuine, it did not meet the statutory criteria for a de facto relationship under the Succession Act. The court found that the relationship lacked the necessary level of commitment and domesticity required to qualify as a de facto partnership for succession purposes. Consequently, the court dismissed Mr. De Jesus' application and granted Ms. Barnes the letters of administration.

The final orders of the court were that Ms. Barnes be issued letters of administration with the will of Mr. Barnes annexed, and that Mr. De Jesus' application for letters of administration be dismissed.

Orders