Ulcej v Hannink [2008] NSWSC 479

Ulcej v Hannink [2008] NSWSC 479

The plaintiff was determined to be an eligible person as de facto partner under the Family Provision Act 1982, based on the evidence of shared residence, mutual commitment, and domestic and caring roles, and was left without adequate provision for his maintenance. Sufficient cause shown for late application, with...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Plaintiff: Michael Ulcej; Defendant: Richard Henri Jan Hannink
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Claim / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's application allowed; time to institute proceedings extended; provision granted; costs ordered.
Legal Topics
Family Provision, De Facto Relationship Status, Adequate Provision for Maintenance, Extension of Time
Succession Equity Family Provision De Facto Relationship Status Adequate Provision for Maintenance Extension of Time

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Ulcej

Plaintiff

Richard Henri Jan Hannink

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Family Provision Claim / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was a de facto partner or had sufficient standing under the Family Provision Act 1982
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was left without adequate provision for his proper maintenance
  3. 3 Whether sufficient cause was shown for application not being made within prescribed period

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was determined to be an eligible person as de facto partner under the Family Provision Act 1982, based on the evidence of shared residence, mutual commitment, and domestic and caring roles, and was left without adequate provision for his maintenance. Sufficient cause shown for late application, with unconscionable conduct by the defendant in failing to follow the will and discouraging ongoing residence. Provision of a legacy of $120,000 was ordered, reflecting the plaintiff's needs for accommodation, debts, car, and contingencies.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application allowed; time to institute proceedings extended; provision granted; costs ordered.

Orders

  • Time for institution of proceedings extended up to and including 27 June 2006.
  • Plaintiff to receive a legacy in the sum of $120,000, not bearing interest if paid on or before 19 June 2008; otherwise to bear interest at the rates prescribed for unpaid legacies by the Probate and Administration Act 1898.