Demeter Legal

It's that lovely time of year when we're all cramming in our CPD points, right?

Not me! Thanks to and I've smashed my requirements yet again this year.

By attending the TT Precedents Club weekly hotseat, I get one point in Substantive Law each time. Tara and Carrie also bring in gueat speakers for monthly CPD events, which netted me 1.5 of those Ethics points you see there.

And being a member of the TT Precedents Club isn't only a low-cost way to get CPD points. It has invaluable benefits for my clients, too: every week, I get to hang out with estate planning lawyers from around the country, learning about a variety of scenarios and solutions.

Speaking of which, gotta run - it's time to get one more point for the year.

A recent case from the WA Supreme Court emphasises that the presence of a de facto relationship is defined not just by adherence to the statutory rules, but by the circumstances of each relationship.

In this appeal from a 2022 ruling, the Court of Appeal considered whether the trial judge had made a mistake in labelling the relationship between Ms Keremestevski and Mr McLeod was that of boyfriend and girlfriend and not 'marriage-like', a determination which resulted in Ms Keremestevski's application for further provision from Mr McLeod's estate being rejected at first instance.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, as the evidence provided by Ms Keremestevski suggested a deeper level of commitment and financial interdependence - in that Ms Keremestevski provided Mr McLeod with financial assistance for his day-to-day expenses - in addition to an ongoing sexual relationship and shared living arrangements, even though the couple owned separate properties and didn't share the expenses associated with the properties. In fact, the Court of Appeal determined that ownership of property or shared expenses isn't necessary for a relationship to be considered 'marriage-like'.

Much of the trial judge's decision to characterise the relationship as boyfriend and girlfriend, rather than marriage-like, hinged on evidence from Mr McLeod's friends and family asserting that the two were rarely seen together in social settings during their relationship. However, the Court of Appeal took a difference view; Mr McLeod was an introvert, and while it was true that Ms Keremestevski and Mr McLeod didn't frequently socialize as a couple, this was largely due to Mr. McLeod's lack of social activity overall. However, during Mr. McLeod's illness, particularly when he needed assistance, they regularly appeared together in public, indicating a significant aspect of their relationship.

(Cont. in comments)

True love, baby 🤎

With thanks to all those who feed us and clothe us every day.

Estate planning quick tip: if one of your Decision Makers (e.g. your Executor, Enduring Guardian, or Enduring Attorney) has died, you may need to update your estate plan.

This will depend on whether your documents are drafted to include appropriate alternates.

Similarly, gifts to beneficiaries who have died may need to be redirected or changed.

It's best to check in with an estate planning specialist before making any changes to your documents.