S, CM v M, Ss

The appellant, C, appealed a Master's decision that dismissed her application for a declaration of domestic partnership under section 11B(2) of the *Family Relationships Act 1975* (SA). This declaration was necessary for C to make a claim for maintenance from the estate of the testator, G, under the *Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1972* (SA). The central issue was whether C was the domestic partner of G at the time of his death.

The legal issue before the Full Court was whether the Master erred in finding that C was not in a close personal relationship with G for the purposes of section 11B(2)(b)(i) of the *Family Relationships Act 1975* (SA). The Court was required to consider whether the Master's factual findings, particularly regarding the reliability of C's evidence, were demonstrably wrong, glaringly improbable, or contrary to compelling inferences, given the limited independent corroboration of C's claims.

The Court applied the principles governing appellate review of factual findings, which permit interference only in limited circumstances. The Master had rejected C's evidence as unreliable unless independently corroborated. While the Master correctly noted that corroboration was not a legal requirement, the Court found that the independent evidence supporting C's assertion of living in a close personal relationship with G was limited. Evidence from a third party suggested G considered C a "nice lady" and that their relationship was progressing "slowly," which the Court considered inconsistent with C's claim of commencing cohabitation soon after their first date. The Court concluded that the evidence supported findings that C and G were in a romantic relationship and that C stayed at G's home at times, but it did not support a finding that they were living in a close personal relationship as required by the Act.

Consequently, the Court held that the Master's finding that C and G were not living in a close personal relationship at the time of G's death was open to her on the evidence. The appeal was dismissed.