Yee v Yee

The proceeding concerned an application for family provision made by a nephew against the estate of his deceased uncle. The nephew sought to be recognised as an eligible person under the *Succession Act 2006* (NSW) and to receive provision from the estate. The court was required to determine whether the nephew had established that he should be regarded as a natural object of testamentary recognition by his uncle, considering community standards. Additionally, the court considered issues relating to the joinder of parties in relation to a notional estate order under the *Succession Act 2006* (NSW) and the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005* (NSW).

The primary legal issue was whether the nephew, despite not being a child or spouse, met the criteria under section 57(1)(e) of the *Succession Act 2006* (NSW) to be considered an eligible person. This involved assessing whether the deceased had made adequate provision for the nephew's proper maintenance, education, and advancement in life, and whether the nephew had demonstrated a sufficient connection to the deceased to warrant such provision according to contemporary community standards. The court also had to consider the procedural aspects of making a notional estate order and the necessary parties to such proceedings.

The court analysed the nature of the relationship between the nephew and the deceased, including the extent of financial and non-financial support provided by the deceased to the nephew during his lifetime, and the nephew's expectations of testamentary benefit. The court applied the principles established in case law regarding the assessment of "adequate provision" and the factors to be considered when determining if a person is a "natural object of testamentary recognition." The court found that the nephew had not established that he was a natural object of the deceased's testamentary recognition, nor that adequate provision had not been made for his proper maintenance, education, and advancement in life. The court also addressed the joinder of parties in relation to the notional estate, finding that the necessary parties had been joined.

The appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the primary judge were affirmed.