Toxic love, testamentary obligation

Published in the Coffs Coast News Of The Area on 27 March 2026.

William died at 48 without a will, leaving an estate valued at $360,000. His assets included a small rural property, a motor vehicle and minimal cash. Under intestacy rules, the estate passed to his sister, Amelia, with whom he had limited contact.

William had, however, been in a long but volatile relationship with Kristina for almost a decade. Their relationship was marked by periods of living together, frequent conflict, police involvement and repeated separations. Kristina often left the home with nowhere stable to go, sometimes staying in motels, on couches or in her car before returning.

Despite the instability, there were moments of connection. William proposed to Kristina, gave her jewellery and told her the property was “her home”. When living together, she contributed by cooking, cleaning and maintaining the home while relying on him for accommodation.

The relationship ultimately ended several months before William’s passing. Both were subject to apprehended violence orders and were living separately at the time he died. Kristina did not learn of his death until several weeks later.

Following his death, Kristina brought a family provision claim. Although she was not entitled under intestacy, as no de facto relationship existed at the time of William’s death, she argued that she had been partly dependent on William for many years, particularly for housing and had been the person closest to him over the last decade.

She also relied on her financial hardship, lack of assets and dependence on Centrelink.

Amelia opposed the claim, arguing the relationship had ended and was characterised by what she described as very ‘toxic behaviour’. She submitted that William had no obligation to Kristina, given they were no longer together at the time of his death.

The Court accepted that the relationship was troubled but enduring. It found that Kristina had been partly dependent on William and was someone who would naturally be expected to receive testamentary provision.

Her financial need was significant, while Amelia’s circumstances were comparatively secure.

The Court awarded Kristina the entirety of the estate, subject to costs, effectively displacing William’s sister.

Thank you to Ellysha Laklem for her assistance with this column.

This fictional column is not legal advice.