Yesilhat v Calokerinos

The case of *Yesilhat v Calokerinos* concerned a family provision claim brought by Ms Calokerinos, who alleged she was the long-term partner of the deceased. The primary dispute revolved around whether Ms Calokerinos qualified as an "eligible person" under the *Succession Act* to make such a claim. The matter was heard by Bathurst CJ, Macfarlan and Brereton JJA.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether Ms Calokerinos had established a de facto relationship, a close personal relationship, or a dependent household member relationship with the deceased, as defined by sections 57(1)(b), (e), and (f) of the *Succession Act*. These provisions require, among other things, that the parties were "living" together and had some common residence. The Court also considered whether the primary judge's findings of fact, particularly regarding the credibility and reliability of witnesses, were so demonstrably wrong as to be "glaringly improbable" according to the test in *Fox v Percy*.

The Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's findings, concluding that Ms Calokerinos had not satisfied the statutory requirements to be considered an eligible person. The reasoning focused on the lack of evidence demonstrating that Ms Calokerinos and the deceased had been "living" together in a manner that established the necessary relationship under the *Succession Act*. The Court found that the evidence did not support the existence of a de facto relationship or a dependent household member relationship, and that the primary judge's assessment of the evidence and witness credibility was sound and not demonstrably wrong.

Consequently, the Court dismissed Ms Calokerinos's amended notice of motion and her appeal, ordering that she pay the costs of both.