Wiggins v Public Trustee - [2020] TASFC 13

[2020] TASFC 13

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT)
CITATION:	Wiggins v Public Trustee [2020] TASFC 13
PARTIES:	WIGGINS, Julie Anne
v
THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE As administrator of the estate of the late Roger William Tapping and as representative of the next of kin of the late Roger William Tapping
FILE NO:	637/2020
JUDGMENT
APPEALED FROM:	Wiggins v Public Trustee [2020] TASSC 3
DELIVERED ON:	23 December 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	28 August 2020
JUDGMENT OF:	Blow CJ, Estcourt J, Geason J
CATCHWORDS:

Family Law and Child Welfare – De facto relationships – Relationship – Whether significant relationship under Relationships Act 2003 (Tas) – No pooling or sharing of property or resources and finances and no cohabitation – Declaration of existence of significant relationship made.

Relationships Act 2003 (Tas), s 4.
Brownell v Robinson [2017] TASFC 11, followed.

Aust Dig Family Law and Child Welfare [493]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: B McTaggart SC
Respondent: S Taglieri SC

Solicitors:

Appellant: McGrath & Co

Judgment Number:	[2020] TASFC 13
Number of paragraphs:	65

Serial No 13/2020 File No 637/2020

JULIE ANNE WIGGINS v THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE
As administrator of the estate of the late
ROGER WILLIAM TAPPING and as representative

of the next of kin of the late ROGER WILLIAM TAPPING

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

FULL COURT
BLOW CJ

ESTCOURT J
GEASON J

23 December 2020

Orders of the Court

1            Appeal allowed.
2            Order dismissing originating application set aside.
3            Declaration that the appellant and the late Roger William Tapping were, immediately before his death, and for a continuous period of at least two years before his death, in a "significant relationship" within the meaning of the Relationships Act 2003.
Serial No 13/2020 File No 637/2020

JULIE ANNE WIGGINS v THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE
As administrator of the estate of the late
ROGER WILLIAM TAPPING and as representative

of the next of kin of the late ROGER WILLIAM TAPPING

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

FULL COURT
BLOW CJ
23 December 2020

1 This appeal concerns the question whether the appellant, Julie Anne Wiggins, was in a "significant relationship", within the meaning of the Relationships Act 2003 ("the Act"), with a man named Roger William Tapping immediately before his death. The respondent, the Public Trustee, is the administrator of his estate. The appellant applied for a declaration that she and Mr Tapping were in a significant relationship. Holt AsJ refused that application: Wiggins v Public Trustee [2020] TASSC 3. This is an appeal from his Honour's decision. Mr Tapping died intestate. He did not have children. If he and the appellant were in a significant relationship, then she was his spouse for the purposes of the Intestacy Act 2010, and is entitled to the whole of his estate. Under s 6(c)(i) of that Act, the definition of spouse includes "a person ... who, immediately before the intestate's death, was a party to a significant relationship, within the meaning of the Relationships Act 2003, with…

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 Wiggins v Public Trustee

Details

AGLC: Wiggins v Public Trustee [2020] TASFC 13
Case: [2020] TASFC 13
Decision Date: 23 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Mr. Wiggins and the Public Trustee (representing the estate of the deceased, Ms. Smith), sought a declaration that a significant relationship existed between Mr. Wiggins and Ms. Smith under the *Relationships Act 2003* (Tas). The dispute arose from the Public Trustee's refusal to acknowledge such a relationship, which would have implications for the distribution of Ms. Smith's estate. The matter was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the relationship between Mr. Wiggins and Ms. Smith constituted a "significant relationship" as defined by the *Relationships Act 2003* (Tas), notwithstanding the absence of cohabitation and a pooling or sharing of property, resources, or finances.

The Court considered the statutory definition of a significant relationship, which requires that the relationship be a de facto relationship. It noted that a de facto relationship does not necessitate cohabitation or the joint ownership or use of property. The Court found that the evidence demonstrated a close personal relationship, characterized by mutual commitment to a shared life, emotional support, and regular contact, which satisfied the criteria for a de facto relationship under the Act, even in the absence of the more commonly associated indicia of cohabitation and financial interdependence. Accordingly, the Court made a declaration that a significant relationship existed between Mr. Wiggins and Ms. Smith.

Orders