Yesilhat v Calokerinos

In the case of Yesilhat v Calokerinos, the plaintiff sought to challenge the defendant's entitlement to benefits under a will, claiming that the defendant was not in a de facto relationship with the deceased. The matter was before the Court, which needed to decide whether the plaintiff's application for summary dismissal was valid, and if the plaintiff and the deceased had been in a relationship "as a couple living together." The court also considered an application for security for costs against the natural person defendant, which was based on a failure to comply with the Court's directions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff and the deceased had a relationship "as a couple living together," despite not sharing a common residence. The plaintiff argued that even though they did not live together, they had a relationship that qualified as a de facto relationship. The court needed to determine whether the plaintiff's deposition was sufficient to argue that a de facto relationship existed. Additionally, the court examined the application for security for costs against the defendant, considering whether the failure to comply with the Court's directions justified the application.

The court found that it was arguable that persons could have a relationship "as a couple living together" even if they did not share a common residence. The plaintiff's deposition, which stated that the deceased treated his business as his home and that the plaintiff had a relationship with the deceased and spent time with him at that business over many years for limited periods, was sufficient to support the argument. The court dismissed the application for summary dismissal, finding that there were arguable grounds for the plaintiff's claim. Furthermore, the application for security for costs was dismissed with costs, as there was no evidence of impecuniosity or other relevant factors to justify the application.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the application for summary dismissal and the application for security for costs, both with costs. The court held that it was arguable that a de facto relationship existed between the plaintiff and the deceased, even though they did not share a common residence, and that the failure to comply with the Court's directions was insufficient to justify an application for security for costs.