Piras v Egan

[2008] NSWCA 59

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Succession
2. › Wills, Probate and Administration
3. › Intestacy
4. › De facto spouse
5. › Whether appellant lived together with deceased as a couple
6. › Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW), s 4
7. › Wills, Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW), ss 32G, 61B(2)
1. Succession
2. › Family Provision
3. › Eligible person
4. › Close personal relationship
5. › Whether persons living together but not as a couple
6. › Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW), s 5(1)(b)
7. › Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW), s 6(1)
1. Succession
2. › Family Provision
3. › Eligible person
4. › Member of household
5. › Whether appellant was member of household of which deceased was member
6. › Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW), s 6(1)(d)
1. Evidence
2. › Witnesses
3. › Credibility
4. › Whether trial judge's rejection of appellant's unsupported word was inconsistent with incontrovertible facts or contrary to compelling inferences

Quick Take

The list of 'circumstances' in s 4(2) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) are reminders of matters that may be relevant, but do not state the essence of a de facto relationship; the essence is found in s 4(1) — whether two people 'live together as a couple'. The rule in Browne v Dunn is not contravened where a witness's evidence is accepted on a topic about which an earlier witness gave no evidence at all, even if the substance was not put to the earlier witness. Once admitted, evidence of conviction can be used as tending to show a witness lacks credibility.