Di Salvo v Public Trustee

In the matter of Di Salvo v Public Trustee, the plaintiff sought to establish her entitlement to a family provision claim under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). The plaintiff, a woman who had been in a relationship with the deceased, sought to be recognised as an eligible person under the Act, claiming that she was either the deceased's de facto partner or another category of eligible person. The dispute centred on the interpretation of the will, which provided the plaintiff with a determinable and conditional right of residence in the deceased's house property. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff had been left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance, given the financial and material circumstances of the deceased at the time of his death.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the term "de facto partner" under the Succession Act and whether the plaintiff's relationship with the deceased qualified as such. The court was also required to assess whether the plaintiff's claim to a determinable and conditional right of residence in the deceased's house property would impact her entitlement to a family provision claim. Furthermore, the court needed to weigh the plaintiff's claim against the competing claims of other beneficiaries, taking into account the deceased's financial and material circumstances at the time of his death.

The court held that the plaintiff was not the deceased's de facto partner under the Succession Act. However, it found that the plaintiff was an eligible person under the Act, as she fell within another category of eligible persons. The court considered the plaintiff's relationship with the deceased and the duration of that relationship in making this determination. The court also found that the plaintiff had not been left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance, given the deceased's financial and material circumstances at the time of his death. Consequently, the plaintiff's family provision claim was dismissed.

The court made no orders for costs, as the plaintiff's claim was dismissed on the basis that she had not been left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance.