Re Ho; Liang v Broadfoot

In the matter of Re Ho; Liang v Broadfoot, the plaintiff, Liang, sought provision from the estate of the deceased, Ho. The dispute involved the eligibility of Liang to bring a claim for provision from Ho's estate, with Liang asserting that they were either Ho's domestic partner or former domestic partner at the time of his death. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues that the court needed to determine included the interpretation of sections 90A of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) and section 35(2) of the Relationships Act 2008 (Vic), and whether Liang could establish that they were Ho's domestic partner or former domestic partner under these provisions. The court also considered relevant case law, including Dow v Hoskins, White v Hume, Re Estate of Sigg, Forsyth v Sinclair, Marrando v Rizzo, and Chan v Mazurkiewicz, to ascertain the appropriate criteria for determining domestic partnership.

The court analysed the evidence and the applicable legal framework to determine if Liang met the criteria for a domestic partnership with Ho. The court concluded that Liang did not satisfy the requirements of a domestic partnership under the relevant legislation and case law. Consequently, Liang's claim for provision from Ho's estate was dismissed.

The court ordered that Liang's claim for provision from the estate of Ho was dismissed, with no costs awarded.