Brownell v Robinson

[2017] TASFC 11

Tasmania Full Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Succession
2. › Intestacy and distribution on intestacy
3. › Spouse
4. › Significant relationship
5. › Whether couple not living together could be in significant relationship
6. › Whether relationship of sufficient quality and significance
7. › Relationships Act 2003 (Tas), s 4
8. › Intestacy Act 2010 (Tas), s 6
1. Succession
2. › Intestacy and distribution on intestacy
3. › Spouse
4. › Continuous period of at least two years
5. › Whether two-year period must be immediately prior to death
6. › Whether separation broke continuity of relationship
7. › Whether two-year period is qualitative requirement rather than minimum duration requirement
8. › Intestacy Act 2010 (Tas), s 6(c)(i)
1. Succession
2. › Probate and letters of administration
3. › Revocation of grant
4. › Grant in non-contentious jurisdiction
5. › Whether grant made to person not entitled
6. › Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932 (Tas), s 6(5)
1. Appeal
2. › Appeal from findings of fact
3. › Whether primary judge properly approached and evaluated evidence
4. › Whether too much weight given to demeanour
5. › Whether finding contrary to compelling inferences
6. › Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Quick Take

A couple who do not share a common residence may nonetheless be in a 'significant relationship' within the meaning of s 4 of the Relationships Act 2003 (Tas), as no single indicium listed in s 4(3) is necessary for the existence of such a relationship. Periods during which parties are 'not speaking' do not necessarily break the continuity of a significant relationship unless they manifest an intention to withdraw from the relationship. In obiter, the two-year period in s 6(c)(i) of the Intestacy Act 2010 (Tas) is a qualitative requirement, not a temporal one requiring the period to be immediately before death, though this point was not finally decided by the Full Court.