Hooper v Winten [2002] NSWSC 1071

Hooper v Winten [2002] NSWSC 1071

The plaintiff did not establish that he and the deceased were living together as a couple at the date of death. The relationship was principally that of carer and person receiving care, with wages payable, no shared bedroom, no joint acquisition of property, no financial intermingling, and no mutual commitment to a shared life as a couple. The plaintiff was nevertheless an eligible person on the basis of partial dependence during the period when wages were unpaid and he depended on the deceased for accommodation and sustenance. However, the $100,000.00 legacy was sufficient provision because it covered the estimated unpaid wages and an additional amount, and the plaintiff's financial...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Claim for Provision Out of a Deceased Estate Under S7 of the Family Provision Act 1982 / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
The plaintiff's claim for further provision failed.
Legal Topics
['eligible Person' 'same Sex Relationship' 'de Facto Relationship' 'domestic Relationship' 'dependency' 'provision From Estate' 'costs']
['succession' 'family Provision'] ['eligible Person' 'same Sex Relationship' 'de Facto Relationship' 'domestic Relationship' 'dependency' 'provision From Estate' 'costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Claim for Provision Out of a Deceased Estate Under S7 of the Family Provision Act 1982 / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff was an eligible person because the deceased was living in a domestic relationship with him at the time of death.' 'Whether the plaintiff and the deceased were in a de facto relationship within s4 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 at the date of death.' "Whether the plaintiff was alternatively an eligible person because he was at a particular time wholly or partly dependent on the deceased and a member of the deceased's household." 'Whether the legacy of $100,000.00 made proper provision for the plaintiff.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff did not establish that he and the deceased were living together as a couple at the date of death. The relationship was principally that of carer and person receiving care, with wages payable, no shared bedroom, no joint acquisition of property, no financial intermingling, and no mutual commitment to a shared life as a couple. The plaintiff was nevertheless an eligible person on the basis of partial dependence during the period when wages were unpaid and he depended on the deceased for accommodation and sustenance. However, the $100,000.00 legacy was sufficient provision because it covered the estimated unpaid wages and an additional amount, and the plaintiff's financial...

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's claim for further provision failed.

Orders

  • []