Piras v Egan

The appeal concerned the entitlement of the appellant to the entire estate of the deceased, who died intestate. The appellant claimed to be the de facto spouse of the deceased, relying on provisions of the *Wills, Probate and Administration Act 1898* and the *Property (Relationships) Act 1984*. Alternatively, the appellant sought provision out of the estate under the *Family Provision Act 1982*, asserting she was in a "close personal relationship" with the deceased and an "eligible person" as a member of the deceased's household. The appeal was heard by Giles JA, Tobias JA, and Campbell JA.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the appellant and the deceased lived together as a couple, thereby establishing a de facto relationship under the *Property (Relationships) Act 1984*, and whether the appellant qualified as an "eligible person" for the purposes of a family provision claim. The court also considered whether the trial judge's assessment of the appellant's evidence, particularly her unsupported word, was inconsistent with incontrovertible facts or based on glaringly improbable evidence, and whether the trial judge misused his advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses. Further issues included whether the trial judge's findings were merely a failure to discharge an onus of proof rather than positive findings, whether insufficient weight was given to the appellant's evidence, and whether the rule in *Browne v Dunn* was contravened. Finally, the court examined whether a failure by the trial judge to inform the parties of the significance he proposed to accord to certain evidence amounted to a denial of natural justice, and if so, whether a new trial was required under Rule 51.53 of the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules*.

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings. The judges found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, concluding that his view of the appellant's unsupported testimony was not inconsistent with incontrovertible facts or based on improbable evidence. The court held that the trial judge made positive findings of fact and did not merely find that the appellant had failed to discharge an onus of proof. The court also found no breach of the rule in *Browne v Dunn* or denial of natural justice. The appeal was dismissed with costs ordered against the appellant.