Based on the Legislation – Succession Act 2006 (NSW)- Part 3 (Family provision)
- NSWCA upheld a $2.55million family provision award to a granddaughter who was left out of her grandfather’s, will dealing with his estate of $29.6 million. This case is significant because it reaffirms that adult grandchildren can succeed in family provision claims if they can show dependency and special circumstances warranting moral obligation.
- The deceased, Giovanni (“John”) Anhius, passed away in 2022, leaving an estate valued at nearly $30 mil. His 2021 will left everything to his daughter, Jenny and excluded both his son Robert and Robert’s daughter Natalie. In an earlier will, Natalie had been left $200,000 but this was later removed. Natalie was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2014 and was partially supported by her grandfather during his lifetime – including financial gifts and help with living expenses.
- After her parents separated, John made payments covering her father’s missed child support. Natalie argued that she was financially and emotionally dependent on John and that he had a moral duty to provide for her.
- Justice Richmond in NSWSC held that Natalie was partly dependent on her grandfather. Her MAS diagnosis and limited work capacity made her a vulnerable beneficiary. There were factors warranting the court’s intervention given the deceased’s prior financial support and the size of the estate and She should receive $2,550,000 from the estate. Jenny appealed this decision.
- Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that Natalie met the eligibility test under s 57(1)(e) Succession Act 2006 (NSW) she was partly dependent on her grandfather at relevant times.
Factors warranting a claim – the court found strong moral and relational grounds, including her serious illness, dependency, and her grandfather’s consistent financial support.
Quantum of Award – the 2.55 mil award was within reasonable limits considering the estate’s value and Natalie’s further needs. The appellate court refused to interfere, as there was no legal or factual error by the primary judge (House v The King standard applied).
This decision carries several key lessons for both practitioners and families:
- Grandchildren can claim provision: Adult grandchild may be eligible if they prove dependency and factors warranting the court’s intervention. Dependency is broader than financial need – it can include emotional and practical support, especially where the claimant faces health or financial vulnerability. Health and future needs as central – Long term illness or disability will heavily influence the court’s view of “adequate provision”.
Testamentary intention matters: Evidence of lifetime support and inclusion in previous wills may show moral obligation, even if the final will exclude the claimant.
Caution for testators: Large estates that omit close dependents without clear reasoning are increasingly vulnerable to challenge under the Succession Act.
- Disclaimer: this is not legal action and should not be relied upon as such.