Dakin v Floyd

In the case of Dakin v Floyd, the deceased, who passed away in 2017, appointed his wife, the defendant, as the executrix under his will, bequeathing to her the entirety of his estate. The plaintiff, who had been in a personal relationship with the deceased since 2013, sought a family provision order under the Succession Act, claiming that she was the deceased's de facto wife. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff was an eligible person under sections 57(b), 57(e), or 57(f) of the Succession Act, and whether there were factors warranting the making of the plaintiff's application. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the plaintiff had been left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance, education, and advancement in life.

The legal issues before the court included whether the plaintiff qualified as an eligible person under sections 57(b), 57(e), or 57(f) of the Succession Act. Section 57(b) pertains to spouses, section 57(e) to those dependent on the deceased and living in their household, and section 57(f) to those with whom the deceased was living in a close personal relationship at the time of death. The court also had to consider whether the plaintiff had been left without adequate provision and, if so, whether an order for provision should be made, and if so, in what amount and form. The final issue was whether a costs-inclusive order should be made.

The court found that the plaintiff was not the deceased's de facto wife at the time of his death, and therefore, she did not qualify under section 57(b) of the Succession Act. However, the court determined that the plaintiff was an eligible person under section 57(e) as someone dependent on the deceased and living in his household. The court found that the relationship had ceased shortly before the deceased's death, but the plaintiff was still living in the deceased's household at the time of his death. The court also found that the plaintiff was not an eligible person under section 57(f) as a person with whom the deceased was living in a close personal relationship at the time of his death. The court concluded that there were factors warranting the making of the plaintiff's application, and that the plaintiff had been left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance, education, and advancement in life.

The court made an order for provision for the plaintiff's proper maintenance, education, and advancement in life, in the amount of $150,000, to be paid within 28 days of the order. The court also made a costs-inclusive order.