Karbowiak v Mitolo

The case of *Karbowiak v Mitolo* involved an application for leave to appeal an interlocutory decision concerning the administration of an estate. The primary dispute centred on whether the first applicant, who claimed to be the deceased's domestic partner, met the statutory definition of a "domestic partner" at the time of the deceased's death. The respondent, the deceased's 90-year-old mother, contested this claim, suggesting the relationship had ended years prior. A further issue arose regarding the eligibility of the second applicant, the first applicant's son, to benefit from the estate, which depended on his mother being the deceased's domestic partner.

The court was required to determine two key legal issues. Firstly, it needed to consider the meaning of "domestic partner" under section 11A(b)(i)(A) or (B) of the *Family Relationships Act* (FRA), specifically whether the first applicant had lived with the deceased continuously for three years or for periods aggregating three years within the four years preceding his death. Secondly, the court had to interpret section 6(g) of the *Inheritance (Family Provision) Act* (IFPA) concerning a child's entitlement, which was contingent on their parent being the deceased's domestic partner.

The court's reasoning focused on the merits of the proposed appeal grounds and the potential for substantial injustice. It noted the applicants' reliance on the High Court's broad interpretation of "living together" in *Fairbairn v Radecki*, which emphasises sharing life as a couple rather than solely cohabitation. However, the court found that the proposed appeal grounds lacked merit. Furthermore, the applicants failed to demonstrate how the order for a separate trial of the FRA declaration, scheduled for April, would cause them substantial injustice.

Consequently, the court refused leave to appeal the interlocutory decision, with costs awarded to the respondent.