Vo v Lai & Anor [2013] NSWSC 1639

Vo v Lai & Anor [2013] NSWSC 1639

The plaintiff was not the de facto spouse of the deceased at the date of death, the relationship having ended in 2008; although he was an eligible person by reason of dependency for a time, he was not a natural object of the deceased's testamentary bounty under s 59(1)(b), given their separation, lack of financial contribution, and the deceased's justified intentions in leaving the estate for their child, Jessica; accordingly, the claim for provision fails.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Amended Summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
['family Provision' 'de Facto Relationships' 'extension of Time' 'limitation of Actions' 'amendment of Originating Process']
['succession Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['family Provision' 'de Facto Relationships' 'extension of Time' 'limitation of Actions' 'amendment of Originating Process']

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

Family Provision Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff was the de facto spouse of the deceased at the time of death' 'Whether the plaintiff was partly dependent on the deceased and a member of the same household' 'Whether the claim was brought within time or should be allowed out of time' 'Whether there are factors which warrant the application for family provision']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was not the de facto spouse of the deceased at the date of death, the relationship having ended in 2008; although he was an eligible person by reason of dependency for a time, he was not a natural object of the deceased's testamentary bounty under s 59(1)(b), given their separation, lack of financial contribution, and the deceased's justified intentions in leaving the estate for their child, Jessica; accordingly, the claim for provision fails.

Court Disposition

Amended Summons dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to section 65 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, order that the claim in the Amended Summons filed on 8 June 2012 date from that date.' 'Pursuant to section 58 of the Succession Act 2006, grant the plaintiff an extension of time up to the filing of the Amended Summons on 3 October 2013 to make a claim under...