Domicile and De Facto Spouse on Intestacy: When an Overseas “Home” Controls Succession and an Independent Administrator Becomes Necessary?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case [2024] NSWSC 726 (Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division), this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

Introduction

This case sits at the crossroads of succession law, private international law, and the practical realities of modern transnational lives: multiple passports, multiple residences, multiple asset jurisdictions, and relationships that do not fit neatly into a traditional marital framework.

Two questions controlled almost everything:

1) If a person dies intestate with moveable assets, which country’s law decides who inherits?

2) Who is entitled, in New South Wales, to step into the role of administrator when the estate is disputed, strained by distrust, and potentially insolvent in the jurisdiction?

The Court’s answers were decisive for the New South Wales administration, but also carried real-world consequences for how the parties would position themselves in overseas proceedings.

---

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

• Court of Hearing: Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}
• Presiding Judge: Pike J :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}
• Cause of Action: Probate and administration on intestacy; competing applications for letters of administration; determination of domicile; determination of de facto spouse status :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}
• Judgment Date: 17 June 2024 :contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}
• Core Keywords:
  • Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
  • Keyword 2: Intestacy
  • Keyword 3: Domicile of choice
  • Keyword 4: De facto relationship
  • Keyword 5: Letters of administration
  • Keyword 6: Independent administrator

Background (No Result Revealed Yet)

The Deceased died intestate overseas, leaving assets in multiple jurisdictions, including New South Wales and several overseas locations. The New South Wales component was comprised of moveable assets such as bank accounts and personal items in storage, while substantial holdings appeared to exist offshore. :contentReference[oaicite:5]{index=5}

The conflict was not simply about money. It was about legal status and control.

One side said: “I was the Deceased’s de facto spouse, and I should be appointed administrator.”

The other side said: “The Deceased was not domiciled in Australia, and even if the other party claims a relationship, the Court should not entrust administration to them; alternatively, the Deceased’s child should be appointed, or an independent administrator should take over.”

Core Disputes and Claims

• Applicant for administration (Procedural Title: Plaintiff):
  • Relief sought: grant of letters of administration in her name as the Deceased’s “spouse” for the purposes of the Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW). :contentReference[oaicite:6]{index=6}
  • Legal position: a de facto relationship existed at the time of death; domicile should be found in Australia or otherwise framed to support the Plaintiff’s position.
• Opposing party (Procedural Title: Defendant):
  • Relief sought: grant of letters of administration in the Defendant’s name as next of kin; alternatively, appointment of an independent administrator. :contentReference[oaicite:7]{index=7}
  • Legal position: the Deceased was domiciled in Portugal; the Plaintiff was not the relevant spouse; distrust and risk required independence.

---

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The relationship began as a professional engagement and developed into an intimate association over time. The evidence spanned many years and multiple countries, and much of it involved travel, communications, and the parties’ conduct around residence, taxation, and daily life arrangements.

The essential problem was that the Deceased died intestate, and once that happened, legal labels mattered immediately:

• “Spouse” status mattered because it affects priority for administration in New South Wales.
• “Domicile” mattered because for moveable assets on intestacy, the law of the domicile governs succession rather than the law of where the property happens to be located. :contentReference[oaicite:8]{index=8}

The case escalated because it was not confined to New South Wales. Portuguese law evidence was adduced, and the parties’ strategic positions in one country potentially shaped their leverage in another. :contentReference[oaicite:9]{index=9}

Detail Reconstruction: Relationship, Finances, Daily Interweaving

The factual matrix included:

• Extensive international travel patterns.
• Arrangements for banking access and transfers.
• Assertions about cohabitation and shared life.
• Communications that supported (or undermined) narratives about being “a couple”.

The Deceased’s assets, on the evidence, included offshore holdings (including banking and corporate interests), and the New South Wales estate was, on the face of it, insolvent when comparing local assets to local debts. :contentReference[oaicite:10]{index=10}

Conflict Foreshadowing: The Decisive Moments

Several pressure points became decisive:

• Competing narratives about where “home” truly was.
• Disputes about whether the relationship continued up to death or ended earlier.
• Post-death conduct, including immediate withdrawals from accounts, which became central to trust and fitness for administration. :contentReference[oaicite:11]{index=11}

---

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Plaintiff’s Main Evidence and Arguments

• Documentary material showing travel and co-location.
• Communications suggesting ongoing intimacy and plans.
• Conduct framed as “coupledom” rather than professional assistance.
• Reliance on the statutory definition of de facto relationship through the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) and succession provisions. :contentReference[oaicite:12]{index=12}

The Plaintiff’s case required the Court to accept, on the balance of probabilities, that the parties had “a relationship as a couple living together” immediately before death, and for a sufficient period to constitute a domestic partnership for succession purposes. :contentReference[oaicite:13]{index=13}

Defendant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

• Evidence that the Deceased’s settled life was centred in Portugal.
• Evidence about the Deceased’s own statements and conduct pointing away from Australia as domicile.
• Evidence challenging the Plaintiff’s credibility and consistency, including the incompleteness of communications tendered.
• Practical submission: due to distrust and risk, even if a priority exists under s 63 of the Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW), the Court should “pass over” and appoint an independent administrator under the Court’s broader power. :contentReference[oaicite:14]{index=14}

Core Dispute Points

1) Domicile of the Deceased at death: Portugal or Australia?
2) Whether the Plaintiff was the Deceased’s de facto spouse at death under the relevant statutory scheme. :contentReference[oaicite:15]{index=15}
3) Who should be appointed administrator: Plaintiff, Defendant, or an independent person. :contentReference[oaicite:16]{index=16}

---

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Affidavit practice dominated the case because the Deceased could not give evidence. That creates a recurring evidentiary problem: one party says, “We had conversations that prove our relationship and intentions,” while the other party says, “Those alleged conversations are convenient, uncorroborated, and must be approached with caution.”

The Court emphasised general fact-finding principles relevant to claims based on communications with a deceased person, including the special weight placed on:

• reliable contemporaneous records,
• caution about uncorroborated assertions,
• and the forensic consequences where documents likely existed but were not produced.

This strategic landscape shaped affidavit drafting: each side used affidavits not just to tell a story, but to build a structure of corroboration or attack credibility.

In-Depth Comparison: The Same Fact, Two Affidavit Lenses

• On “residence”: one narrative framed travel and stays as a genuine shared home; the other framed it as transient, opportunistic, or not amounting to a settled domestic life.
• On “finances”: one narrative framed access to accounts as practical support within a partnership; the other framed it as a risk factor and evidence of self-interest, particularly after death. :contentReference[oaicite:17]{index=17}
• On “intentions”: one narrative framed future plans as continuing and committed; the other emphasised that scattered intentions do not displace consistent conduct pointing to domicile and settled life elsewhere.

Strategic Intent Behind the Court’s Procedural Directions

The Court’s directions and the approach to evidence reflected the need to:

• stabilise the evidentiary record,
• prevent unfairness from late “plugging holes” after cross-examination,
• and ensure that the party with primary access to communications could not selectively curate the record without consequence.

---

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before final orders, the Court dealt with procedural management issues typical of contested administration disputes:

• competing claims for administration,
• contested factual matrices requiring cross-examination,
• evidentiary objections and attempted tender of additional communications late in the process,
• and directions aimed at narrowing final disputes to what truly mattered.

The ultimate procedural directions in the judgment required the parties to confer and attempt to agree orders giving effect to the reasons, including costs, with timetables for agreed or competing orders and submissions. :contentReference[oaicite:18]{index=18}

---

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

This was a classic credibility-heavy probate dispute. The hearing required the Court to choose between:

• curated communications and claimed recollections, and
• objective indicators of residence, conduct, and intent.

Cross-examination focused on:

• inconsistencies between earlier statements (including overseas litigation instructions) and the positions advanced in New South Wales,
• gaps in production of communications when one party had control of devices and accounts,
• and the practical realities of where the Deceased actually lived, intended to live, and built a settled base.

Core Evidence Confrontation: The Decisive Clashes

The decisive confrontations were not about one dramatic document. They were about the coherence of an “objective chain”:

• patterns of residence and conduct,
• acts consistent with a settled home base,
• and whether the relationship remained “on foot” immediately before death.

On the domicile question, the Court placed substantial weight on long-term conduct and settled living patterns.

On the relationship question, the Court treated the issue as multifactorial and anchored in the statutory framework, while being alert to the risk of rewriting history after death.

Judicial Reasoning: How Facts Drove the Result

The Court’s approach was to move from legal test to objective facts to conclusion, rather than beginning with sympathy or assumption. In a case where the Deceased cannot speak, the Court’s emphasis fell heavily on what can be proved reliably.

The Court held: “No matter how far or wide he roamed, he called Portugal home.”

This statement was determinative because it captures the core private international law consequence: if domicile is Portugal, then succession to moveables on intestacy follows Portuguese law (subject to complex cross-border issues), and strategic positioning in New South Wales cannot manufacture an Australian succession outcome merely because assets exist here.

---

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

Orders and Procedural Directions

The Court directed the parties to confer and to seek to agree orders giving effect to the reasons, including costs, and set a timetable for agreed or competing orders and submissions, including whether any further oral hearing was sought. :contentReference[oaicite:19]{index=19}

Key Determinations Announced

The Court determined that:

• the Deceased was domiciled in Portugal at the time of death; :contentReference[oaicite:20]{index=20}
• the Plaintiff was the Deceased’s de facto spouse at the time of death within the meaning of the relevant statutory provisions; :contentReference[oaicite:21]{index=21}
• an independent person should be appointed administrator. :contentReference[oaicite:22]{index=22}

---

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis: Why This Case Matters Beyond the Parties

This decision is jurisprudentially valuable because it demonstrates, with uncommon clarity, how courts handle three realities that increasingly define succession litigation:

1) Globalised estates: assets scattered across jurisdictions, but local procedural control still matters.

2) Domicile as the hidden engine: for moveables, domicile determines the applicable succession law, and domicile is proven by conduct, not slogans.

3) De facto spouse status in succession contexts: the statutory definition is not sentimental. It is factual, evaluative, and often decided by the reliability of objective material.

The case also illustrates a frequent “disconnect” between:

• recognition of relationship status in one jurisdiction, and
• inheritance rights under another jurisdiction’s law.

The Portuguese law evidence highlighted that cohabitants may not be recognised as heirs under Portuguese succession law, amplifying the strategic importance of domicile. :contentReference[oaicite:23]{index=23}

Judgment Points: The Core Legal Moves the Court Made

1) The Court treated domicile as a fact-driven conclusion, not a label.
The Court applied the statutory test of intention to make a home indefinitely (domicile of choice), assessed through objective behaviour over time rather than isolated statements.

2) The Court treated de facto relationship as a comprehensive concept.
The Court followed the approach that the enquiry should not be dissected into rigid sub-elements; it is evaluative and multi-factorial, guided by the statutory factors in the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW). :contentReference[oaicite:24]{index=24}

3) The Court separated “status” from “fitness”.
Even if a person is within the preferred class for a grant under s 63, that does not guarantee appointment where the administration would be endangered by distrust, conflict, or risk.

4) The Court used the evidentiary burden pragmatically.
Where one party controlled communications, the Court was alert to selective production and the forensic consequences of unexplained gaps.

5) The Court recognised that New South Wales administration might be local in effect but global in consequence.
Appointment as administrator for New South Wales assets may influence how parties posture in overseas litigation, even if overseas courts are not bound by New South Wales findings.

Legal Basis: Statutory Provisions the Court Applied

• Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW):
  • s 63 (order of persons to whom administration may be granted) :contentReference[oaicite:25]{index=25}
  • s 74 (broad discretion to appoint administrator where necessary or convenient) :contentReference[oaicite:26]{index=26}
• Succession Act 2006 (NSW):
  • s 104 (spouse definition for intestacy context) :contentReference[oaicite:27]{index=27}
  • s 105 (domestic partnership threshold, including continuous 2 years or child) :contentReference[oaicite:28]{index=28}
• Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW):
  • s 21C(2) (relationship as a couple living together; not married; not family-related) :contentReference[oaicite:29]{index=29}
  • s 21C(3) (nine non-exhaustive factors) :contentReference[oaicite:30]{index=30}
• Domicile Act 1979 (NSW):
  • the domicile of choice test: intention to make a home indefinitely, assessed by conduct and circumstances (as applied in the reasons). :contentReference[oaicite:31]{index=31}

Evidence Chain: Conclusion = Evidence + Statutory Provisions

Below are eight “victory points”, each expressed as a practical formula:

Victory Point 1: Domicile of choice is proved by a settled centre of life, not by intermittent presence

• Statutory provision: domicile of choice requires an intention to make a home indefinitely (Domicile Act 1979 (NSW)). :contentReference[oaicite:32]{index=32}
• Evidence chain: the Court identified a stable “home base” and treated travel as roaming around that base rather than evidence of multiple domiciles.
• Practical effect: the party arguing for an Australian domicile needed more than time spent in Australia; the evidence had to show an indefinite home intention, supported by coherent conduct.

Victory Point 2: For moveables, domicile decides succession, so domicile is the strategic hinge

• Legal principle: succession to moveable property on intestacy is determined by the law of the domicile of the intestate. :contentReference[oaicite:33]{index=33}
• Evidence chain: New South Wales assets were moveables; offshore assets and overseas proceedings increased the stakes of domicile.
• Practical effect: proving domicile was not academic; it shaped inheritance positions across jurisdictions.

Victory Point 3: De facto relationship turns on “coupledom”, not simply sex, travel, or convenience

• Legal test: s 21C(2) requires a relationship as a couple living together. :contentReference[oaicite:34]{index=34}
• Evidence chain: the Court assessed the relationship as multifactorial, including duration, residence, financial interdependence, commitment to a shared life, and public reputation. :contentReference[oaicite:35]{index=35}
• Comparable authority: Piras v Egan [2008] NSWCA 59 emphasises that the listed circumstances are reminders, and the essence is whether the parties live together as a couple. :contentReference[oaicite:36]{index=36}
• Practical effect: a party cannot “win” simply by proving romance or sexual intimacy; the Court looks for a merging of lives consistent with the statutory concept.

Victory Point 4: A relationship does not end by distance alone; it ends with finality and intention

• Legal principle: more than physical separation is required; there must be an intention to permanently end the relationship. :contentReference[oaicite:37]{index=37}
• Evidence chain: even if there were “troubles” and periods apart, contemporaneous communications immediately before death were treated as inconsistent with finality. :contentReference[oaicite:38]{index=38}
• Practical effect: in succession litigation, the “end date” of a de facto relationship is often the battlefield; the strongest evidence is near-death conduct and communications, not retrospective explanations.

Victory Point 5: Credibility is not binary; unreliable witnesses can still succeed if objective evidence supports the claim

• Evidence chain: the Court expressed concerns about the Plaintiff’s reliability, but still reached a finding that the relationship remained on foot, principally on objective material. :contentReference[oaicite:39]{index=39}
• Practical effect: practitioners should not assume that a credibility hit automatically loses the case. The real question becomes: what remains that is corroborated, objective, and coherent?

Victory Point 6: Control of documents creates both power and risk

• Evidence chain: where one party had access to communications and chose what to tender, the Court was alert to the limits of inference and the forensic disadvantage to the other side. :contentReference[oaicite:40]{index=40}
• Practical effect: selective disclosure is a double-edged sword. It may allow a curated narrative, but it also invites judicial scepticism and procedural pushback.

Victory Point 7: Priority under s 63 does not override the Court’s protective jurisdiction under s 74

• Statutory provisions:
  • s 63 provides an order of preference (spouse, next of kin, etc). :contentReference[oaicite:41]{index=41}
  • s 74 gives broad discretion to appoint an administrator if necessary or convenient. :contentReference[oaicite:42]{index=42}
• Evidence chain: distrust, withdrawals, and risk factors led the Court to conclude that independence was required. :contentReference[oaicite:43]{index=43}
• Practical effect: in contested estates, the best “administrator strategy” is often to persuade the Court that neutrality is required, especially where the estate is functionally insolvent locally but politically important globally.

Victory Point 8: Post-death conduct can dominate the appointment question even if it does not fully control relationship status

• Evidence chain: the Court pointed to immediate post-death withdrawals and distrust as reasons for concerns about fitness to administer. :contentReference[oaicite:44]{index=44}
• Practical effect: parties who want administration should behave as if every step will be scrutinised. In probate litigation, the first 48 hours after death often become a long shadow.

Judicial Original Quotation: Core Determinative Dicta

The Court held: “No matter how far or wide he roamed, he called Portugal home.”

This single sentence crystallises a key doctrinal point for domicile: mobility does not equal multiplicity of domicile. A person can travel widely yet remain anchored to one indefinite home. Once domicile is found, private international law consequences follow with force.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The losing party failed not necessarily because every factual assertion was wrong, but because the case did not align with what the Court regarded as the most reliable indicators:

• The domicile case failed because the evidence did not show an Australian “home indefinitely” intention as at death, and the conduct pointed elsewhere.
• The administration case failed because, even if the party fell within a preferred class, the Court was not satisfied that entrusting them with administration would protect the due and proper administration of the estate, given distrust, contested withdrawals, and risk. :contentReference[oaicite:45]{index=45}

---

Implications

Five Practical Legal Implications for the General Public

1) If you build a life across borders, your “home” is a legal concept, not just a feeling.
Courts look at where your life is actually anchored and where you intend to remain indefinitely, not where you visit.

2) If you live with someone long-term without marrying, your legal status may still matter, but it must be provable.
Photos and memories help, but objective records and consistent conduct are what carry weight.

3) After a death, the first things you do can become evidence.
A decision that feels practical in the moment, like moving money or accessing accounts, can later be framed as self-interest or risk, and may affect whether you are trusted with control.

4) In family disputes, a neutral administrator is not an insult.
It can be the Court’s way of preventing the estate from becoming a weapon and keeping the process fair.

5) A will is not just for the rich.
In transnational lives, intestacy can trigger multi-country conflict, duplicative proceedings, and outcomes that differ sharply from what anyone thought was “fair”. A carefully drafted will is often the simplest form of peace.

---

Q&A Session

Q1: If the estate has assets in New South Wales, does that automatically mean Australian law decides who inherits everything?

No. The Court may have jurisdiction to grant administration for New South Wales property, but succession to moveables on intestacy follows the law of the domicile. If domicile is overseas, overseas succession rules may govern inheritance of moveables, even if some assets are physically in New South Wales. :contentReference[oaicite:46]{index=46}

Q2: Does being a de facto spouse in New South Wales guarantee inheritance?

Not necessarily. De facto spouse status may affect priority for administration and may matter under Australian succession legislation, but inheritance outcomes can differ by jurisdiction and asset type. Where assets sit overseas, local succession laws and conflict of laws rules may produce different results.

Q3: Why would a Court appoint an independent administrator instead of the spouse or a child?

Because the Court’s role is to protect the due and proper administration of the estate. Where there is deep distrust, contested withdrawals, and significant risk of conflict, the Court may “pass over” a person otherwise entitled and appoint a neutral administrator so that administration is not compromised. :contentReference[oaicite:47]{index=47}

---

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

Appendix Category Selected: ⑥ Wills, Estates and Succession Law

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype

Probate and Administration on Intestacy: Competing Letters of Administration with Disputed De Facto Spouse Status and Domicile (Cross-Border Estate).

Judgment Nature Definition

Final Judgment (Principal judgment determining domicile, de facto spouse status for statutory purposes, and directing appointment structure for administration). :contentReference[oaicite:48]{index=48}

---

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

Core Test (Validity)

Did the testator have testamentary capacity at the time of execution? Was there any undue influence or duress?

In this case, the Deceased died intestate, so “validity of a will” was not the primary contest. However, the validity framework remains practically relevant because in cross-border estate disputes, parties often later allege informal wills, foreign wills, revoked wills, or testamentary instruments. The following remains a rigorous checklist that tends to be determinative in many estate disputes:

• Capacity: the ability to understand the nature of making a will, the extent of property, and the moral claims of potential beneficiaries.
• Knowledge and approval: the testator’s understanding of the document’s contents.
• Voluntariness: absence of coercion.
• Suspicious circumstances: high-risk factors such as radical changes near death, dependence on a beneficiary, secrecy, or language barriers.

Risk warning: outcomes are fact-sensitive. Even where capacity appears present, suspicious circumstances may require stronger proof, and courts may be cautious where the deceased cannot clarify their intentions.

Core Test (Family Provision Claims)

Has the deceased failed to make “adequate provision” for the proper maintenance, education, or advancement in life of the applicant (child/spouse)? Consideration of the applicant’s financial position and the deceased’s moral obligation.

Although this proceeding centred on administration rather than family provision, in many estates a finding of “spouse” or “de facto spouse” status becomes strategically relevant to later family provision proceedings.

A rigorous self-check for potential applicants:

• Standing: are you an eligible person under the Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW) (or the relevant statute if another jurisdiction applies)?
• Need: what is your current financial position, income, liabilities, and realistic future needs?
• Moral obligation: what was the nature and duration of your relationship with the deceased, and what dependency or contribution existed?
• Competing claims: what claims do children or other dependants have, and how strong are they?
• Estate size and solvency: if the estate is small or insolvent, even a strong claim may yield limited practical outcome.

Risk warning: family provision outcomes tend to be determined by the interaction of need, competing claims, and estate size. A strong relationship alone does not guarantee a large provision, and a small estate tends to constrain all outcomes.

---

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

Where statutory avenues are limited or cross-border succession rules exclude cohabitants, equity and common law doctrines can become the “counter-attack” routes. In a cross-border estate scenario like this one, the most realistic alternatives tend to arise around contributions, promises, and control of assets, particularly where property is held through corporate structures or trusts.

Promissory / Proprietary Estoppel

Self-check:

• Did the Deceased make a clear and unequivocal promise or representation about property or support, such as “this home will be ours” or “you will be provided for”?
• Did the claimant act in detrimental reliance, such as relocating countries, giving up employment, caring for the Deceased, paying expenses, or contributing labour?
• Would it be unconscionable for the estate to deny the promise?

Result reference: even without a written contract, equity may estop the estate from resiling from a promise where reliance and detriment are proved.

Risk warning: courts tend to require clarity of the promise and concrete evidence of reliance. Vague expressions of affection or future hopes tend to be weak.

Unjust Enrichment / Constructive Trust

Self-check:

• Has the estate received a benefit at the claimant’s expense (money, labour, services)?
• Is it against conscience for the estate to retain the benefit without compensation?
• Is there a clear link between the enrichment and the claimant’s detriment?

Result reference: the Court may order restitution or declare a beneficial interest through a constructive trust, particularly where contributions are substantial and directly connected to the acquisition or improvement of property.

Risk warning: a mere “relationship” does not automatically create equitable entitlement. Evidence must identify specific contributions and the causal connection to identifiable property or benefit.

Procedural Fairness (Where Administrative Decisions Arise)

In cross-border contexts, parties sometimes face decisions by trustees, administrators, or foreign registries. If a decision-maker denies access, refuses recognition, or acts without fair process, procedural fairness arguments may become relevant in the appropriate forum.

Risk warning: procedural fairness principles tend to operate differently depending on the decision-maker’s nature and the jurisdiction’s law.

---

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds

• Domestic partnership threshold in succession contexts: continuous period of 2 years, or relationship resulting in birth of a child (as reflected in the statutory scheme). :contentReference[oaicite:49]{index=49}
• Limitation and timing pressures:
  • Probate and administration disputes often escalate quickly because asset control, bank freezes, and urgent interim relief can arise soon after death.
  • Family provision claims (if later pursued) often face statutory time limits that require early action.

Risk warning: timing is frequently decisive. Delay can reduce practical options, especially where assets are moved, dissipated, or distributed overseas.

Exceptional Channels (Crucial)

• Where the relationship duration is disputed, courts may still recognise a de facto relationship if the “relationship as a couple living together” is proved, taking all circumstances into account, without requiring every factor to be satisfied. :contentReference[oaicite:50]{index=50}
• Where administration is unsafe due to conflict, the Court may pass over an otherwise preferred person and appoint an independent administrator to protect the estate. :contentReference[oaicite:51]{index=51}

Suggestion: do not abandon a potential claim solely because one headline threshold looks difficult. Carefully assess whether an exception or alternative pathway exists, especially in cross-border estates where “status” and “entitlement” can diverge.

---

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle

It is recommended to cite this case in legal submissions or debates involving:

• domicile of choice assessment by objective conduct;
• the statutory conception of de facto spouse in succession contexts;
• the Court’s discretion to appoint an independent administrator where conflict and distrust undermine proper administration.

Citation Method

• As Positive Support:
  When your matter involves a disputed relationship and contested administration, the reasoning supports that “status” does not compel appointment where the estate’s integrity requires neutrality.

• As a Distinguishing Reference:
  If the opposing party cites this authority to argue for an independent administrator, distinguish your case by emphasising an absence of distrust, absence of disputed withdrawals, or the existence of cooperative administration mechanisms.

Anonymisation Rule

In submissions and public commentary, use procedural titles such as Plaintiff / Defendant and Deceased, and avoid publishing party names where anonymisation is required by policy or ethical practice.

---

Conclusion

This judgment demonstrates a simple but powerful truth: in succession disputes, the Court follows structure.

First, the Court identifies the legal test. Then it builds the chain of evidence. Only then does it decide who should control the estate.

Golden Sentence: Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

---

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales ([2024] NSWSC 726), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.