Frisoli v Kourea; Frisoli v Kourea (No. 2)

The proceedings in Frisoli v Kourea involved a dispute over the estate of a deceased man, with his former partner and another party contending their respective entitlements. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary contention was the identification and quantification of the deceased's estate, particularly the extent to which it should be apportioned to the cross-claimant, who was determined to have been in a de facto relationship with the deceased for more than two years prior to his death. This finding triggered provisions of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) concerning the distribution of the estate under the intestacy rules.

The court was required to address several legal issues, including the appropriate form of relief under section 59 of the Succession Act, the apportionment of the estate considering both the modest liquid assets and the substantial funds held in a family trust and superannuation fund, and the implications of various expenses and outgoings on the distribution. It also considered whether certain costs incurred in other contested proceedings should be recognised as expenses before the estate's apportionment and whether special orders should be made for the costs of the family provision proceedings. Furthermore, the court had to decide whether the superannuation funds should be paid to the family trust or directly to the estate, and whether certain expenses related to the residential property should be deducted from its sale proceeds before the estate's apportionment.

The court concluded that the cross-claimant was entitled to a portion of the estate, and that the estate's apportionment should account for the significant assets held in the family trust and superannuation fund. It ruled that certain costs incurred in other contested proceedings should indeed be recognised as expenses before the apportionment of the estate. The court also made special orders for the costs of the family provision proceedings, deciding that the superannuation funds should be paid directly to the estate. Additionally, the court determined that certain expenses and outgoings related to the residential property could be deducted from its sale proceeds before the estate's apportionment, and that the value of certain chattels should be credited against the aliquot share of the estate awarded to one beneficiary.

The final orders included the apportionment of the estate, recognition of certain costs as expenses, special orders for the costs of the family provision proceedings, the payment of superannuation funds directly to the estate, deductions for certain expenses and outgoings from the sale proceeds of the residential property, and the crediting of the value of certain chattels against the estate share awarded to one beneficiary.