Hillman v Box (No 4)

In this matter, the Applicant, a former domestic partner of the deceased, sought various orders relating to the deceased's estate. The Applicant claimed that she had not been adequately provided for by the deceased's will and sought an order under the Family Provision and Maintenance Act. The Applicant also sought orders that the deceased's joint tenancy in a property be severed in equity, that a Deed should be set aside on the basis of non est factum or undue influence, and that certain chattels and half the proceeds of a property sale be held on constructive trust for her. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues. Firstly, whether the signed Deed severed the joint tenancy between the deceased and the Applicant. Secondly, whether the Deed should be set aside on the grounds of non est factum or undue influence. Thirdly, whether the Applicant had been adequately provided for under the deceased's will, and if not, whether she was entitled to an order under the Family Provision and Maintenance Act. Fourthly, whether the Applicant was entitled to a share of the chattels and half the proceeds of the property sale.

The court held that the signed Deed did sever the joint tenancy in equity, as the Deed was valid and properly executed. The Applicant had freely signed the Deed and was capable of understanding it, and had not been prevented from seeking independent legal advice. The court also found that the Applicant had not been adequately provided for by the deceased's will, and accordingly made an order under the Family Provision and Maintenance Act. However, the court dismissed the Applicant's claim for chattels and for half the proceeds of the property sale, as the Applicant had not made a significant financial contribution to the purchase of the property and there was no constructive trust in her favour.

The court ordered that the Applicant be paid a lump sum from the deceased's estate under the Family Provision and Maintenance Act. No other orders were made in favour of the Applicant.