Legal Research
Cases
Le v Angius; Angius v Angius

Le v Angius; Angius v Angius

Case [2024] NSWSC 924 1 August 2024

Eligible Person

De Facto Relationship

Dependent

Succession Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Le v Angius; Angius v Angius [2024] NSWSC 924
Hearing dates: 9–20 October 2023, 26 October 2023,
15–16 November 2023, 13–14 December 2023
02 February 2024
Date of orders: 01 August 2024
Decision date: 01 August 2024
Jurisdiction: Equity - Succession & Probate List - Family Provision
Before: Richmond J
Decision:
See [434]-[437]

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION — Family provision — Claim by alleged de facto partner of the deceased for provision from the deceased’s estate under Succession Act 2006 (NSW), Ch 3 — Whether eligible person — Whether in a de facto relationship at time of death
SUCCESSION — Family provision — Claim by grandchild for provision from the deceased’s estate under Succession Act 2006 (NSW), Ch 3 — Whether dependent at any time on the deceased — Whether factors warranting

Legislation Cited:
Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)
Succession Act 2006 (NSW)
Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Angius v Salier [2019] NSWSC 184
Angius v Salier (No 5) [2023] NSWSC 678
Bowditch v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2012] NSWSC 275
Chapple v Wilcox (2014) 87 NSWLR 646; [2014] NSWCA 392
Chisak v Presot [2022] NSWCA 100
Dridi v Fillmore [2001] NSWSC 319
Estate of Laura Angius; Angius v Angius [2013] NSWSC 1895
Et-China.com International Holdings Ltd v Cheung (2021) 388 ALR 128; [2021] NSWCA 24
Fairbairn v Radecki (2022) 275 CLR 400; [2022] HCA 18
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22
Gianna (Jenny) Angius v Gordon Albert Salier [2018] NSWSC 995
Gordon Salier v Robert Angius [2015] NSWSC 853
Hayes v Marquis [2008] NSWCA 10
Lalic v Lalic [2022] NSWSC 31
Lodin v Lodin [2017] NSWCA 327
McCarthy v Tye [2017] NSWCA 284
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Angkawijaya (2016) 236 FCR 303; [2016] FCAFC 5
NSW Trustee and Guardian v McGrath [2013] NSWSC 1894
Page v Page [2017] NSWCA 141
Petersen v Gregory; Estate Glen Alfred Petersen [2007] NSWSC 8
Piras v Egan [2008] NSWCA 59
Plunkett v Bull (1915) 19 CLR 544; [1915] HCA 14
Quijarro v Robson [2008] NSWSC 818
Re Fulop Deceased (1987) 8 NSWLR 679
Robert Angius v John Angius [2018] NSWSC 1772
Robson v Quijarro [2009] NSWCA 365
Saravinovski v Saravinovska [2017] NSWCA 85
Sheen v Hesan; the Estate of Zaheer [2023] NSWSC 468
Smoje v Forrester [2017] NSWCA 308
Spata v Tumino (2018) 95 NSWLR 706; [2018] NSWCA 17
Steinmetz v Shannon (2019) NSWLR 687; [2019] NSWCA 114
Sulliman v Sulliman [2002] NSWSC 169
Tarbes v Taleb [2023] NSWSC 565
Tobin v Ezekiel (2012) 83 NSWLR 757; [2012] NSWCA 285
Vaughan v Hoskovich [2010] NSWSC 706
Warner v Hung (No 2) (2011) 297 ALR 56; [2011] FCA 1123
Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315
Zahra v Francica [2009] NSWSC 1206

Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
Proceedings 2022/41064
Thi Quy Le (Plaintiff)
Jenny Angius (Defendant)

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 Le v Angius; Angius v Angius

Details

AGLC: Le v Angius; Angius v Angius [2024] NSWSC 924
Case: [2024] NSWSC 924
Decision Date: 01 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Le and Angius, both of whom made claims against the deceased's estate under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), Chapter 3. Le, an alleged de facto partner of the deceased, sought provision from the estate on the basis that she was in a de facto relationship with the deceased at the time of their death. Angius, the deceased's grandchild, also sought provision on the grounds of dependency and other factors warranting it. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues that the court had to resolve were whether Le was indeed in a de facto relationship with the deceased at the time of their death, thus making her eligible under the Succession Act, and whether Angius was dependent on the deceased at any point in time, along with other factors that could justify a provision from the estate. The court also had to evaluate the weight of the evidence provided by both parties to determine the validity of their claims.

The court meticulously examined the evidence presented by both Le and Angius. Regarding Le's claim, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to establish a de facto relationship at the time of the deceased's death. Consequently, Le's claim was dismissed. In the case of Angius, the court considered the dependency factor and other relevant circumstances but concluded that the dependency was not significant enough to warrant a provision from the estate. Therefore, Angius's claim was also dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that both Le and Angius's claims were denied, with the court finding that neither party met the criteria for a provision from the deceased's estate under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW).

Orders