Peipi v Peipi as Administrator of the Estate of the late Ashoor Hilaney [2013] NSWSC 1520

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Peipi v Peipi as Administrator of the Estate of the late Ashoor Hilaney [2013] NSWSC 1520 Hearing dates: 12 October 2012, 18 October 2012, 22 October 2012, 1 November 2012, 6 December 2012, 15 July 2013. Decision date: 17 October 2013 Jurisdiction: Equity Division Before: Slattery J Decision: Plaintiff (Helen Peipi) held to be the deceased's de facto spouse for two years before his death and entitled to the statutory legacy under Succession Act, s 113. But deceased's daughter succeeds in her Succession Act, s 59 claim for family provision as to 65 per cent of the estate, inclusive of costs. Administration of the estate to be granted to the Public Trustee, unless parties agree on another neutral administrator to act. Catchwords: PROBATE - intestacy - deceased dies intestate in March 2011 - one plaintiff says she was the deceased's de facto spouse for at least 2 years before his death and entitled under Succession Act 2006 s 113 to the statutory legacy for spouses - another plaintiff, the deceased's daughter denies the first plaintiff was the de facto spouse of the deceased and claims that the daughter is entitled to the estate under Succession Act, s 127 - whether the first plaintiff was the deceased's de facto spouse and entitled under Succession Act, s 113 - HELD: - first plaintiff was the deceased's de facto spouse for at least 2 years before his death and entitled under Succession Act 2006 s 113

SUCCESSION - family provision - two competing claims for family provision, the first from the spouse/plaintiff and the second from the daughter/plaintiff - as the spouse/plaintiff has established her entitlement to the statutory legacy under Succession Act 2006 s 113, she does not further pursue an order for provision under Succession Act 2006 s 59 - but the statutory legacy to the spouse under Succession Act 2006 s 113 accounts for the whole of the estate - so the daughter/plaintiff seeks an order for provision under Succession Act 2006 s 59 - daughter is an eligible person under Succession Act 2006 s 57 - daughter profoundly disabled - whether adequate provision has been made for daughter - what provision should be made for the proper maintenance, education and advancement in life of the daughter - HELD: - daughter entitled to 65% of the estate and spouse to 35% of estate - orders for provision out of the estate made on an inclusive-of-costs basis.