“Ambit, opportunistic and cascading” claim challenged

Published in the Coffs Coast News Of The Area on 9 May 2025.

Greg passes-away and leaves his $1 million estate to his only surviving son, Craig.

Greg’s only other son, died several years ago, leaving 4 children of his own, one of them being Peter.

When Peter discovers that his grandfather had not included him in his will, he seeks legal advice and makes a “family provision” claim against Greg’s estate, in the Supreme Court.

Peter has been unemployed for many years and has no substantial assets. His financial circumstances are such that he is able to demonstrate that he has sufficient “needs” to warrant an order in his favour.

Peter files an affidavit with the Court, stating that due to his financial needs he requires an (outrageous) allowance of $550,000 to purchase a house, $40,000 for a motor vehicle, $10,000 for furniture and $200,000 as a “contingency” fund.

At the hearing, Peter reduces his claim to $150,000 for accommodation, $28,000 for a new car and $50,000 for unforeseen expenses.

In his barrister’s final submissions to the Court, Peter reduces his claim to $115,000.

However, Peter’s status as an “eligible person” to make a claim is a point of contention.

Peter’s counsel say that he is eligible because he is a grandchild of the deceased who was a member of the deceased’s household. The Court notes that Peter must also demonstrate that he was “wholly or partly dependent upon the deceased”.

Peter’s evidence is that he received several substantial gifts of money from Greg and that he stayed in Greg’s spare room on occasion, sometimes for a couple of weeks at a time, also receiving love, affection, protections and advice from Greg.

In dismissing Peter’s case, the Court rules that Greg’s “hospitality” and “casual” financial assistance, were not sufficient to constitute even a partial dependency.

Ultimately, Peter receives nothing more than an order that he pay the estate’s substantial legal costs.

This case demonstrates the importance of obtaining the proper advice from experienced solicitors and barristers before making a claim in the Supreme Court.

This fictional column is not legal advice.