A Devonport woman has failed to prove in the Supreme Court she and her partner of 10 years were in a significant relationship at this time of his death, for the purpose of inheriting his estate.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Julie Anne Wiggins and Roger William Tapping, also of Devonport, first met in 2004 on an online dating service.
The pair were in a relationship from 2005 until Mr Tapping's death in 2015 aside from a period between 2008 and 2010 where their relationship had cooled off, but they remained friends.
When Mr Tapping, 54, died he had never been married, had no children and his nearest relatives were his cousins.
He did not leave a will and left an estate valued at $530,000.
An application by Ms Wiggins to be declared Mr Tapping's spouse within the meaning of the Intestacy Act, which deals with the distribution of estates when there is no will, was denied by Associate Justice Stephen Holt on Thursday.
For the declaration to have been made, Associate Justice Holt had to been convinced Ms Wiggins and Mr Tapping were in a significant relationship which had been in existence for a continuous period of at least two years within the meaning of the Relationships Act 2003.
In other news:
Other factors considered include the nature and extent of common residence, whether or not a sexual relationship exists, degree of financial dependence and degree of mutual commitment to a shared life.
Associate Justice Holt said, while Ms Wiggins' and Mr Tapping's lives had become very much entwined over the period of their relationship, they lacked commitment to financial responsibility for each other in life and death.
"Ms Wiggins wanted to keep her property and finances within her own control," Associate Justice Holt said.
"She only made a small non-financial provision for Mr Tapping in her will.
"Mr Tapping, although having expressed orally a desire to make provision for Ms Wiggins or her family in his will and having no close relative to receive his bounty, did not leave a will.
"Another feature, which counts against the making of the declaration sought by Ms Wiggins is that there was not cohabitation and there was never any mutual intention of cohabitation occurring sometime in the future."
Associate Justice Holt said Mr Tapping had wanted to marry Ms Wiggins and live with her.
"But Ms Wiggins did not due to his drinking binges and so that they did not take each other for granted," he said.
"The fact that Ms Wiggins would never have married Mr Tapping is explained by her having been a party to four failed marriages in the past, the last to an alcoholic, and her desire not to commit to a fifth."