SAP v SAD1

The deceased, who had been charged with sexual assault against his daughter, died by suicide before the conclusion of his criminal trial. His daughter, along with a de facto spouse, sought family provision from his estate, which he had left entirely to his daughter. The de facto spouse, who had been appointed as the executrix, challenged the validity of the will and the appropriateness of the bequest. The court had to decide whether the de facto spouse was eligible for family provision, whether the allegations of sexual assault should be determined in the family provision proceedings, and if a suppression order should be made to prevent publication of certain details.

The court found that the de facto spouse was not eligible for family provision under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). The court rejected the argument that sexual assault allegations should generally not be determined in family provision proceedings, holding that a finding on the allegations was necessary. The court found that the sexual assault was not established on the balance of probabilities. The court also considered the need for a suppression order under the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) to prevent publication of identifying details of the complainant in the sexual offence proceedings, and held that such an order was necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

The court made an order for family provision of $1.175 million, with the source of the funds to be discussed by the parties. The executrix's costs were to be paid on the indemnity basis, subject to leave for other parties to seek a different order. The court also made a suppression order in relation to the reasons for judgment and the proceedings, suppressing names of the parties and other identifying details of the complainant.