Piras v Egan - [2006] NSWSC 328

CITATION: Piras v Egan [2006] NSWSC 328

HEARING DATE(S): 7, 8, 9, 10 November 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :
4 May 2006

JURISDICTION: Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Associate Justice Macready at 1

DECISION: Paragraph 119

CATCHWORDS: Succession, Family Provision. Claim by a de facto partner of deceased and thus entitled to the whole of the deceased's estate on intestacy. Alternative claim under Family Provision Act 1982. Held plaintiff not a de facto partner and alternative claims fail.

PARTIES: Augusto Piras v Michael Andrew Egan and Renate Judith Egan (Estate of Roberta Anne Egan]

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 5185 of 2003

COUNSEL: Mr DA Smallbone & A Singh for plaintiff
Mrs M Bridger for defendant

SOLICITORS: Anderson Lawyers for plaintiff
Robilliard Plowman Herat for defendant

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

Associate Justice Macready

Thursday 4 May 2006

5185/2003 Augusto Piras v Michael Andrew Egan and Renate Judith Egan (Estate of Roberta Anne Egan)

JUDGMENT

1 His Honour: This is a claim in respect of the estate of the late Roberta Anne Egan, who died on 21 April 2003 aged 45 (the deceased). She was survived by the plaintiff, who claims to have been her de facto partner at the date of death, and three half siblings. The deceased did not leave a will and Letters of Administration were granted on 25 August 2003 to the two defendants who are a half sister and half brother of the deceased.

2 The plaintiff brings proceedings seeking a declaration that he was the de facto spouse of the deceased at the date of death and an order revoking the existing Grant of Administration with a new grant to him. In event that he is successful in this claim he will receive the whole of the estate. At present the estate is shared between the three half siblings of the deceased. In the alternative, he makes a claim under the Family Provision Act 1982 based upon what he says was the close personal relationship he had with the deceased or, alternatively, as a person who was part of the deceased’s household and partly dependant upon her.

3 A judge of the court has referred the whole of the proceedings to me for hearing.

Estate of the Deceased

4 The Letters of Administration detail the estate of the deceased as being:

20-26 Wombat Street, Blackheath $610,000.00

Commonwealth Bank account $3,486.36

Monies held in trust by Office of $288,397.38

Protective Commissioner

Total $901,883.74

5 At the time of the hearing the value of the assets in the estate were:

20-26 Wombat Street, Blackheath $465,000.00

Monies in IBD with ANZ Bank $228,548.83

Total $695,488.83

6 There had been deducted from the estate by the time of the hearing administration costs, settlement of a claim by a Mr Williams and some of the defendants’ costs of $58,611.00. By the time of the hearing the defendants’ costs were estimated at:

Costs billed but unpaid $21,242.60

Anticipated costs to conclusion of hearing $33,625.00

7…

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 Piras v Egan

Details

AGLC: Piras v Egan [2006] NSWSC 328
Case: [2006] NSWSC 328
Decision Date: 4 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Piras v Egan involved a claim by the plaintiff, Piras, who sought entitlement to the entire estate of the deceased, Egan, under the principles of intestacy. In the absence of a will, Piras argued she was the deceased's de facto partner and therefore entitled to the whole estate. Failing that, she sought relief under the Family Provision Act 1982. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine whether Piras was a de facto partner of the deceased and, if not, whether she was entitled to a provision from the estate under the Family Provision Act. This involved examining the nature of the relationship between Piras and the deceased, including the duration, nature, and extent of their cohabitation, and the extent to which they held themselves out as a couple to others. The court also had to assess whether Piras made any contributions to the estate and whether those contributions warranted a provision under the Act.

The court found that Piras and the deceased did not have a de facto relationship as defined by the law. It was concluded that their relationship did not meet the criteria of living together on a genuine domestic basis, despite some periods of cohabitation. Additionally, the court determined that Piras did not make sufficient contributions to the estate to warrant a provision under the Family Provision Act. Consequently, both of Piras' claims were dismissed.

The court ordered that Piras' claim for the whole estate on intestacy and her claim under the Family Provision Act were to be dismissed with no orders for costs.

Orders