Equality between siblings not the ruling principle.  

In Taylor v Brinin (2024) QDC 84, a disappointed beneficiary under a Will sought to do better than the 50% share of her deceased mother’s estate that was left to her in the Will.  The net value of the estate was $1.3 million.  The claimant’s sister was entitled to the other 50% under the terms of the Will.  Each sister would receive $650,000 if the estate was unchallenged.

The claimant, aged 53, brought a family provision claim in the District Court of Queensland, alleging that because of her modest financial circumstances she should be provided with more than 50% of the estate.

The financial circumstances of her sister, aged 63, were considerably better.  However the court observed that entitlement to further provision from an estate is about “adequate provision” for proper support for eligible applicants – it is not about “equalising the standard of living of siblings”.

The executors of the estate filed an application seeking to have the claim summarily dismissed (as opposed to allowing the matter to be determined in the ordinary way, ie by trial).

The court examined the usual range of relevant factors including the size of the estate, the net assets and income of the two beneficiaries, the future financial needs of the claimant, and the effect of legal costs arising from the proceedings including possible erosion of the estate by the costs involved in allowing the matter to proceed to trial.

The court observed that the claimant’s sister and her husband “are in comfortable financial circumstances” in terms of assets.  Importantly, the court did not find the claimant to be in “dire need” financially.

The focus of the court was on whether “adequate provision” was made by the Will for the proper maintenance and support of the claimant.  His Honour Judge Porter KC observed in respect of the claimant as follows:

“I have great difficulty in accepting the proposition that a person with assets of $1m, including an unencumbered house and $400,000 in savings, has not received adequate provision; especially a person who swears to be living a very modest lifestyle with no dependants. That is so even allowing for the mental health issues which Ms Taylor speaks of.”

His Honour, in dismissing the claim, found amongst other things that the claimant had sought to pursue expensive proceedings for the opportunity to obtain a relatively small increase in her provision compared with her entitlement under the Will. 

The court noted that the Succession Act 1981 provides a mechanism for eligible applicants to seek an award of provision by the court where the deceased (“as a wise and just testator”) has failed to meet their duty to provide for that person.  The court also noted that “None of the cases cited in the applicant’s outline support the proposition that the provision in the Will was not ample.”

Put simply, His Honour was not convinced that the claimant’s financial circumstances were needy enough to warrant allowing the matter to proceed to trial, factoring in the impact of continuing litigation on the sister, the legal costs involved, etc.

Whilst the court observed that the applicant’s claim was “not utterly hopeless”, His Honour concluded that:

“Cases of this kind bring the administration of justice into disrepute and can be an abuse of process.”

The proceedings were summarily dismissed – a costly result for the claimant.

The key lessons to be learnt from this case are that (1) in family provision claims, equality in financial expectations between siblings is not the concern of the court (2) adequate provision for proper support for eligible applicants is the paramount concern of the court in such claims, and (3) obtaining early advice from a lawyer experienced in this area is advisable before embarking on, or defending, a family provision claim.

If you have any queries in relation to deceased estate disputes, telephone Senior Associate Chris Kohler at Croy Legal on 1300 123 876 or email [email protected]