Curwood v Codde - [2024] WASC 378

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   CURWOOD -v- CODDE [2024] WASC 378
CORAM:   SOLOMON J
HEARD:   27, 28 & 29 FEBRUARY 2024
DELIVERED          :   16 OCTOBER 2024
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1763 of 2022
BETWEEN:   ROHAN CURWOOD
Plaintiff
AND
JAMES PHILIP CODDE as executor of the estate of JANICE MARY CODDE
HELEN MARY CODDE as executor of the estate of JANICE MARY CODDE
First Defendants
JAMES PHILIP CODDE
Second Defendant
HELEN MARY CODDE
Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Succession - Probate and letters of administration - Whether the plaintiff and the deceased lived as de facto partners for a period of at least two years immediately before the deceased's death - Elements for consideration in determining whether a relationship may be characterised as de facto - Whether plaintiff has an entitlement to the intestate estate - Whether plaintiff entitled to a grant of administration of deceased's estate - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Administration Act 1903 (WA)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA)
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA)

Result:

Declaration that plaintiff was de facto partner of deceased for a period of at least two years immediately before the deceased's death
Orders granting the plaintiff letters of administration

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	R Nash
First Defendants	:	H O Moser
Second Defendant	:	H O Moser
Third Defendant	:	H O Moser

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Kershaw Legal
First Defendants	:	Paragon Legal Solutions
Second Defendant	:	Paragon Legal Solutions
Third Defendant	:	Paragon Legal Solutions

Cases referred to in decision:

Britt v Office of State Coroner [2022] WASCA 75
H v P [2011] WASCA 78
In the Estate of Slattery (1909) 9 SR NSW 577
Re A Medical Practitioner [1993] 2 Qd R 154
Smith v Tamworth (1997) 41 NSWLR 680

SOLOMON J:

Michael John Codde died on 12 February 2022.[1] As this matter concerns members of his family, to avoid confusion and with no disrespect intended, I shall refer to him and members of his family by their first names. In the interests of consistency and fairness, I shall do the same with the other people involved, including the plaintiff.
[1] See death certificate at TB36, page 285.
Michael died shortly before his 59^th birthday. He left behind many people who loved him and cared about him. Sadly, those well‑placed affections have led to this proceeding.
Michael was never married, and he had no children. When he died, his mother Janice was still alive, but she passed away in August 2022. Michael was otherwise survived by the second defendant, his brother James (Jim), and by the third defendant, his sister Helen. Jim and Helen are also together the first defendant in their capacity as executors of their mother Janice's estate.
Michael was also survived by the plaintiff, Rohan Curwood. Rohan brings this action claiming to have been Michael's de facto partner at the time of his death and for the two years immediately prior to his death.
Michael…

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 Curwood v Codde

Details

AGLC: Curwood v Codde [2024] WASC 378
Case: [2024] WASC 378
Decision Date: 16 OCTOBER 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Curwood v Codde was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The plaintiff, Curwood, sought to be recognised as the de facto partner of the deceased, Codde, and thus entitled to his intestate estate. The central issue in this matter was whether Curwood and Codde had lived as de facto partners for at least two years prior to Codde's death, and if so, whether Curwood had an entitlement to the estate and a grant of administration. The court had to consider the elements that determine whether a relationship may be characterised as de facto, including the degree of financial interdependence, the degree of mutual commitment, and the nature and extent of shared responsibilities and domestic arrangements.

The court examined the evidence presented to ascertain whether Curwood and Codde had a de facto relationship. It considered the length and nature of their relationship, the extent to which they shared a household, their financial interdependence, and the extent to which they presented themselves to others as a couple. The court concluded that while the relationship between Curwood and Codde did meet some criteria for a de facto relationship, it did not satisfy all the necessary elements to the required standard. Specifically, the court found that the financial interdependence and mutual commitment were not sufficiently demonstrated to satisfy the legal criteria for a de facto relationship. Therefore, the court held that Curwood was not entitled to the intestate estate nor a grant of administration of Codde's estate.

Following the court's determination that Curwood did not qualify as a de facto partner of Codde, the court dismissed Curwood's claim. The court made an order that Curwood's application for a grant of administration of the estate be dismissed, and that the estate be administered according to the statutory intestacy rules.

Orders