GFR v SRP - [2024] TASFC 2

[2024] TASFC 2

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT)
CITATION:	GFR v SRP [2024] TASFC 2
PARTIES:	GFR
v
SRP
FILE NO:	1658/2023
JUDGMENT
APPEALED FROM:	GFR v SRP [2023] TASSC 15
DELIVERED ON:	3 May 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	2 October 2023
JUDGMENT OF:	Blow CJ, Porter AJ
CATCHWORDS:

Succession – Intestacy and distribution on intestacy – Tasmania - Meaning of "spouse" under Intestacy Act 2010 – Whether respondent in significant relationship with intestate at time of his death.

Aust Dig Succession [1332]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: B R McTaggart SC
Respondent: K E Read SC

Solicitors:

Appellant: Simmons Wolfhagen
Respondent: Butler McIntyre & Butler

Judgment Number:	[2024] TASFC 2
Number of paragraphs:	55

Serial No 2/2024

File No FCA 1658/2023

GFR v SRP

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	FULL COURT BLOW CJ PORTER AJ 3 May 2024
Orders of the Court:

1 Appeal allowed.
2 Orders of Holt AsJ set aside.

Serial No 2/2024

File No FCA 1658/2023

GFR v SRP

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

FULL COURT
BLOW CJ
3 May 2024

1 This appeal concerns the estate of the late HMW. Mr W took his own life on 4 September 2021. He did not leave a will. The respondent, SRP, lived with him from 2015 until shortly before his death, but was not married to him. She claims to be entitled to his estate. She and the deceased had a child, who was born in August 2019. The appellant, GFR, is the father of the deceased. He contends that [the child] is entitled to the whole of the estate.
2 The critical issue in this appeal is whether the respondent was the spouse of the deceased at the time of his death for the purposes of the Intestacy Act 2010. Section 6 of that Act provides as follows:
"6 Spouse
A spouse of an intestate is a person –

(a) who was married to the intestate immediately before the intestate's death; or
(b) who was a party to a registered personal relationship, within the meaning of the Relationships Act 2003 , with the intestate; or
(c) who, immediately before the intestate's death, was a party to a significant relationship, within the meaning of the Relationships Act 2003 , with the intestate that –

(i) had been in existence for a continuous period of at least 2 years; or
(ii) had resulted in the birth of a child."

3 The respondent contends that immediately before the death of the deceased he and she were the parties to a significant relationship within the meaning of the Relationships Act 2003 that had resulted in the birth of a child; that she was therefore his spouse for the purposes of that Act; and that she is therefore entitled to the whole estate pursuant to s 13 of the Intestacy Act.
4 The appellant, who contended otherwise, commenced an action seeking a grant of letters of administration of the estate to himself and…

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 GFR v SRP

Details

AGLC: GFR v SRP [2024] TASFC 2
Case: [2024] TASFC 2
Decision Date: 3 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *GFR v SRP* concerned a dispute over the distribution of an intestate estate in Tasmania. The applicant, GFR, sought to be recognised as the spouse of the deceased for the purposes of the *Intestacy Act 2010* (Tas). The respondent, SRP, contested this claim. The matter came before the Supreme Court of Tasmania, presided over by Blow CJ and Porter AJ.

The central legal issue before the Court was the interpretation of the term "spouse" as defined in the *Intestacy Act 2010*. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the respondent, SRP, was in a "significant relationship" with the intestate at the time of his death, as required by the Act for a person to be considered a spouse in the context of intestacy.

The Court analysed the evidence presented regarding the nature of the relationship between SRP and the deceased. It considered the criteria for establishing a "significant relationship" under Tasmanian law, which typically involves factors such as the duration and nature of the relationship, shared residence, financial interdependence, and the degree of commitment. Applying these principles to the facts, the Court concluded that SRP had indeed been in a significant relationship with the intestate at the time of his death.

Consequently, the Court found that SRP qualified as a spouse under the *Intestacy Act 2010* and was therefore entitled to a share of the intestate estate. The Court made orders reflecting this determination.

Orders