Petersen v Gregory; Estate Glen Alfred Petersen [2007] NSWSC 8

Petersen v Gregory; Estate Glen Alfred Petersen [2007] NSWSC 8

At the date of death, Ms Gregory and the deceased did not live together as a couple or share a romantic relationship or mutual commitment transcending mere residential cohabitation. Ms Gregory was not the de facto spouse for the purposes of intestate succession under s.61B of the Wills, Probate and Administration Act 1898.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Probate Proceedings (intestate Estate) / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Letters of administration to be granted to deceased's father (Mr Petersen). Ms Gregory's claim as de facto spouse fails. Costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['intestate Succession' 'de Facto Spouse' 'letters of Administration' 'de Facto Relationship Definition']

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

Probate Proceedings (intestate Estate) / Judgment After Hearing

  1. 1 ['Whether Ms Gregory was the de facto spouse of the deceased at the time of death for purposes of intestate succession under the Wills, Probate and Administration Act 1898']

Ratio Decidendi

At the date of death, Ms Gregory and the deceased did not live together as a couple or share a romantic relationship or mutual commitment transcending mere residential cohabitation. Ms Gregory was not the de facto spouse for the purposes of intestate succession under s.61B of the Wills, Probate and Administration Act 1898.

Court Disposition

Letters of administration to be granted to deceased's father (Mr Petersen). Ms Gregory's claim as de facto spouse fails. Costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Grant of letters of administration to George Petersen as surviving parent.' "Ms Gregory's claim to be de facto spouse refused." 'Directions for costs submissions: If Ms Gregory seeks a different costs order, written submissions to be filed within fourteen days; Mr Petersen to respond within a further fourteen days.']