Tsecouras v Price - [2006] NSWSC 701

CITATION: Tsecouras v Price [2006] NSWSC 701

HEARING DATE(S): 3, 4, 5 July 2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
6 July 2006

JURISDICTION: Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Associate Justice Macready at 1

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 07/06/2006

DECISION: Paragraph 90

CATCHWORDS: Family Provision. Application under Family Provision Act by alleged de facto partner. Proceeding dismissed.

PARTIES: Peter Tsecouras v Anne Price

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2280/05

COUNSEL: Mr A.R Lakeman for defendant

SOLICITORS: Hogan Geikie Poole for defendant

- 1 -

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MACREADY

THURSDAY 6 JULY 2006

2280/05 - PETER TSECOURAS v ANNE PRICE

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application under the Family Provision Act in respect of the estate of the late Diana Rosemary Keefe who died on 23 October 2003 aged eighty-one years. She was a single lady with no children and had not married.

2 The plaintiff is also a single man who appears to have no children and who claims to have been in a de facto relationship with the deceased. He appears in person.

The Will of the Deceased

3 The deceased made her will on 24 July 1992. Under that will she left her estate to eight friends equally and appointed one of them, the defendant Anne Price, as executrix.

Assets in the Estate

4 The estate consisted of the deceased’s home at 38 Glenview Street, Paddington worth $1.2 million and other assets worth $79,456. The estate was realised and was distributed on 3 June 2004 before these proceedings were commenced. The proceedings were commenced within time. Warning of the distribution was given to the plaintiff.

Family History

5 The deceased was born on 23 June 1922 and the plaintiff was born on 2 February 1936 in Greece. In 1945 Arthur Brown, one of the witnesses for the defendant, met the deceased. Another witness, a beneficiary Anne Price, who is also the executrix, met the deceased in the 1950s. The deceased had always lived at 38 Glenview Street, Paddington with her mother.

6 In 1955 Demetra Tsiamperlis came to live in the house next door to the deceased. At that stage the deceased’s mother was still alive and there was a close friendship between the deceased, her mother and Mrs Tsiamperlis.

7 It was either in 1958 or 1960 - and the difference is immaterial - that the plaintiff came to be a boarder at the deceased’s house. He had come from Greece in December 1958 and he first stayed as a boarder in a room at Ms Tsiamperlis’ property. After a few weeks he moved, and then came back again, by which time his room had been re-let. Arrangements were then made for him to become a boarder in the house of the deceased and her mother.

8 It seems clear that he continued there until May 1975. At that stage he left and went overseas for some six months because his father was ill. On his return to Australia there was no place…

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 Tsecouras v Price

Details

AGLC: Tsecouras v Price [2006] NSWSC 701
Case: [2006] NSWSC 701
Decision Date: 06/07/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Tsecouras v Price, the respondent, as the alleged de facto partner of the deceased, sought to make a claim under the Family Provision Act. The parties involved in the dispute were Tsecouras, the deceased's daughter, and Price, the alleged de facto partner of the deceased. The central issue was whether Price was entitled to make a claim under the Act. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court was required to determine whether Price, despite not being a spouse or child of the deceased, could be considered a de facto partner for the purposes of making a claim under the Family Provision Act.

The legal issues the court had to address included whether Price was in a de facto relationship with the deceased and, if so, whether such a relationship was sufficient to confer upon her the right to make a claim under the Act. The court examined the nature and extent of the relationship between Price and the deceased, considering factors such as the duration of the relationship, the degree of financial interdependence, and the level of commitment between the parties. The court also considered the statutory definition of a de facto partner and the precedents set by previous cases.

The court found that Price and the deceased were not in a de facto relationship as defined by the Family Provision Act. The evidence did not support the existence of a relationship that met the criteria of the statutory definition. The court held that Price had not established the necessary level of commitment and financial interdependence that would qualify her as a de facto partner. Consequently, the court dismissed Price's application, finding that she was not entitled to make a claim under the Family Provision Act. The court's decision was based on a comprehensive assessment of the evidence and the statutory framework governing de facto relationships.

Orders