Mao v Peddley

The case of Mao v Peddley involved a claim by Mao, the plaintiff, for provision from the estate of the deceased, Peddley. The central issue was whether Mao was an eligible person under the Family Provision Act to make a claim against the deceased's estate. Specifically, the court needed to determine if Mao had been in a de facto relationship with Peddley at the time of his death, given that Mao had primarily resided in Australia while Peddley had resided in Thailand for most of their relationship. This raised questions about the nature and duration of their relationship, and whether Mao had been living in a close personal relationship with Peddley as required by the Act.

The legal issues the court had to decide included the definition and scope of a de facto relationship under the Family Provision Act, the relevance of the parties' residency and visits, and the credibility of Mao's statements regarding her relationship with Peddley. The court considered various factors, including the length of their relationship, the degree of emotional and financial interdependence, and the conduct of the parties. It also examined the statements and evidence provided by Peddley about their relationship, as well as the circumstances surrounding Mao's application for permanent residency in Australia.

The court found that Mao and Peddley had not been in a de facto relationship as defined by the Family Provision Act. The court determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of a close personal relationship given the significant geographical separation and lack of evidence of shared life. The court also highlighted inconsistencies in Mao's statements to the Department of Immigration and her credibility. Consequently, the court dismissed Mao's application for provision from the estate. In addition, the court ordered that Mao vacate the deceased's property and pay the executor mesne profits for the period of her unauthorised occupation.