Kidd v Richardson; Estate of Eric Alfred Dudeney [2001] NSWSC 367
The court found that the evidence of a de facto relationship was insufficient on a prima facie basis, given discontinuity of cohabitation, lack of expense sharing, defendant's marital status and separate residence, and the weak overall circumstances, and thus summary decision against allowing the matter to proceed was warranted.
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Frances Joy Kidd; Defendant: Wendy Richardson
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 24 April 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Probate Application / Summary Determination on Sufficiency of Evidence for De Facto Claim
- Outcome
- Application dismissed; administration granted to plaintiff; defendant to pay costs.
- Legal Topics
- De Facto Relationship, Probate Procedure
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Frances Joy Kidd
Plaintiff
Wendy Richardson
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Probate Application / Summary Determination on Sufficiency of Evidence for De Facto Claim
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant was the de facto spouse of the deceased so as to have a prior right to administration of the estate
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the evidence of a de facto relationship was insufficient on a prima facie basis, given discontinuity of cohabitation, lack of expense sharing, defendant's marital status and separate residence, and the weak overall circumstances, and thus summary decision against allowing the matter to proceed was warranted.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed; administration granted to plaintiff; defendant to pay costs.
Orders
- No further caveats should be lodged to protect the defendant's interest.
- Unless the Registrar otherwise orders, administration to be granted to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment