Sinclair v Forsyth - [2008] VSC 250

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 5217 of 2005

IN THE MATTER of Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958

- and –

IN THE MATTER of the Will and Estate of MALCOLM BAILEY FORSYTH, deceased

MARLENE CHERYL SINCLAIR	Plaintiff
v
CAMPBELL GRANT FORSYTH (who is sued as the executor of the will and trustee of the estate of MALCOLM BAILEY FORSYTH, deceased)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	HARPER J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	2-6, 10 & 11 JUNE 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 OCTOBER 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	SINCLAIR v FORSYTH
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 250

---

TESTATOR’S FAMILY MAINTENANCE – Application for provision pursuant to Part IV, Administration and Probate Act 1958 – Application by plaintiff, claiming to be the domestic partner – Whether the particular relationship gave rise to moral responsibility to make provision – Plaintiff and deceased maintained separate households and were financially independent – Whether plaintiff in need of provision.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr K. Macfarlane	Remington Wright & Co
For the Defendant	Mr J. Loewenstein	Peter J. Walsh Carroll Kiernan & Forrest

HIS HONOUR:

This litigation gives rise to an important issue about the extent of the moral duty of a testator under the present legislative regime governing that duty.[1] It extends beyond family members to anyone for whom the testator had a duty to make testamentary provision. The question in this case is whether that duty extends to a person with whom the testator had a lengthy social and personal relationship (which included not only sexual intimacy, but also a deep, abiding and intimate friendship) but where financial independence was largely preserved, and separate residential headquarters were maintained.
[1]Administration and Probate Act 1958, Part IV.

Malcolm Forsyth is the testator. He died on 1 July 2004. He was 63 years old, having been born on 21 April 1941. He died suddenly, at work, from a heart attack; the last of several from which he had suffered. It was thought, initially, that he had not left a will. Letters of administration were, by order of this Court made on 27 August 2004, granted to his only sibling, his brother Campbell Forsyth.

As it happened, a will was later discovered. It was dated 27 October 1973, and had therefore been made when Malcolm Forsyth was 32. He was then, as he continued to be for the remaining 31 years of his life, a bachelor. By his will, the testator appointed his mother and his brother as his joint executors. His mother, however, predeceased him; and, accordingly, Campbell Forsyth - as the sole remaining executor - applied to have the letters of administration revoked, and for a grant of probate of the will. The application was successful. Probate was granted on 11 November 2004. Mr Forsyth is therefore now the sole executor of his brother’s 1973 will.

The deceased’s estate is valued at approximately $791,000. Campbell Forsyth…

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 Sinclair v Forsyth

Details

AGLC: Sinclair v Forsyth [2008] VSC 250
Case: [2008] VSC 250
Decision Date: 3 October 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sinclair v Forsyth involves an application for provision under Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958. The plaintiff, Sinclair, claims to be the domestic partner of the deceased, Forsyth, and seeks maintenance from his estate. The dispute centres on whether the relationship between the plaintiff and the deceased was of such a nature that it imposed a moral obligation on the deceased to provide for the plaintiff. The court was required to determine if the relationship constituted a domestic partnership that warranted financial support post-decease, despite the parties maintaining separate households and being financially independent.

The legal issues before the court included the definition and scope of a domestic partnership for the purposes of the Act, and whether the plaintiff was in need of maintenance from the deceased's estate. The court had to consider the nature of the relationship, including the degree of emotional and financial interdependence, as well as the plaintiff's personal circumstances at the time of the deceased's death. The court also needed to assess if the plaintiff's claim was substantiated by the evidence presented, given the separate living arrangements and financial independence of the parties.

In delivering the judgment, the court concluded that the relationship between Sinclair and Forsyth did not amount to a domestic partnership that would impose a moral duty on the deceased to provide for the plaintiff upon his death. The court found that while there was evidence of an emotional bond, the separate living arrangements and financial independence of the parties negated any presumption of a duty to provide for the plaintiff. The court determined that the plaintiff was not in need of maintenance from the deceased's estate. Consequently, the application for provision was dismissed.

Orders